G.R. No.

L-13708

January 29, 1919

THE UNITED STATES

V.

FRANCISCO CONSTANTINO TAN QUINGCO CHUA

Facts:

 On April 29, 1911, Pedro Andres, borrowing of Francisco Constantino Tan Quingco
Chua, the instant defendant, the sum of P100, with interest of 24 cavanes of palay.
On the July 9, 1911, the debt was raised to P125, with interest of 30 cavanes of
palay. On June 28, 1913, it has become P226.70, secured by a pacto de retro, with
the interest at 44 cavanes of palay annually.

 On October 17, 1915, when the debt was liquidated with the result that Andres had
an obligation of P474.20, which he promised to pay on the 25th of the same month.

 On October 25, 1916, Pedro Andres and Francisco Constantino Tan Quingco Chua
executed a documentary by which Andres sold to Tan Quingco Chua under pacto de
retro a certain parcel of land and a female carabao with the amount of P684.20. The
period of redemption was to be five months

 Andres was to hold the land during this time as lessee and as such lessee to pay a
rent of 90 cavanes of palay, each cavanes to weigh 44 kilos, in the month of
February, 1917, and all charges during the existence of the lease. Execution on the
judgment of October 25, 1916, resulted in Andres paying to the Chinaman P474, and
turning over to him 98 cavanes of palay.

 The outcome of these various transactions was the filing of an information by the
provincial fiscal of Nueva Ecija, charging Francisco Constantino Tan Quingco Chua
with the crime of usury, predicated specially on the document of October 25, 1916.

 An appeal from a judgment of the Court of First Instance of Nueva Ecija, finding the
accused Francisco Constantino Tan Quingco Chua guilty and sentenced him to pay a
 fine of P225, or to suffer subsidiary imprisonment in case of insolvency, and to pay
the costs.

Issues:

 Did the trial court commit an error in admitting evidence relating to facts which
occurred prior to the going into effect of the Usury Law, and has this court followed
in the same treacherous path in its narration of the evidence?

 Did the accused violate the Usury Law by the accomplishment of what purports to
be a pacto de retro?

Held:

 Usury laws, ordinarily, are to be construed prospectively and not retrospectively.

The courts may look unto prior occurrence in order to understand a particular fact
which is claimed to be a violation of the law, and in order to ascertain the criminal
intent.

 A corrupt intent is likewise of the essence of usurious transactions. “To constitute

usury, within the prohibition of the law, there must be an intention knowingly to
contract for or take usurious interest; for if neither party intend it, but act bona fide
and innocently, the law will not infer a corrupt agreement. Where, indeed, the
contract, upon its very face, imports usury, as by an express reservation of more
than legal interest, there is no room for the presumption; for the intent is apparent,
res ipsa loquitur. But where the contract on its face is for legal interest only, there it
must be proved that there was some corrupt agreement, or devise or shift, to cover
usury; and that it was in the full contemplation of the parties.” (United States Bank
vs. Waggener [1835], 9 Pet., 378.)