FACTS:

Gabino Soliman testified in Court with regards to the criminal case in which he, and several others, were
charged with estafa, swore falsely to certain material allegations of the fact.

On that occasion he testified falsely that a sworn statement offered in evidence in support of the charge
of estafa had not been executed voluntarily, and that its execution had been procured by the police by
the use of force, etc.

There can be no doubt that the accused was guilty of the crime of perjury as defined and penalized in
section 3 of Act No. 1697 and that the sentence of six months' imprisonment and P300 fine imposed by
the trial judge was correctly imposed under the provisions of that statute .

It appears however that since judgment was entered in this case on November 23, 1915, Sec. 3 of Act
No. 1697 has been expressly repealed by the enactment of the Administrative Code, which became
effective on July 1, 1916, and it has been suggested that the judgement convicting and sentencing the
accused under the provisions of that statute should not be sustained.

ISSUES:

A question does arise, however, as to the penalty which should be impose upon the convict.

If the repealing statute provides or has the effect of providing new penalties for the commission of the
acts penalized under the repealed statue, should the penalty be imposed in accordance with the old or
new statute?