[go: up one dir, main page]
Scribd
Upload
515 views1 page

People v. Tamayo J 1935 (Effect of Repeal)

The Supreme Court of the Philippines dismissed criminal proceedings against Crisanto Tamayo. Tamayo had been convicted in a lower court of violating a municipal ordinance, but while his appeal was pending, the municipal council repealed the ordinance in question. The Supreme Court ruled that because the conduct Tamayo engaged in was no longer deemed criminal due to the repeal of the ordinance, it would be illogical to sentence him for an offense that no longer exists. The proceedings against Tamayo were therefore dismissed.

Uploaded by

meerah
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
515 views1 page

People v. Tamayo J 1935 (Effect of Repeal)

The Supreme Court of the Philippines dismissed criminal proceedings against Crisanto Tamayo. Tamayo had been convicted in a lower court of violating a municipal ordinance, but while his appeal was pending, the municipal council repealed the ordinance in question. The Supreme Court ruled that because the conduct Tamayo engaged in was no longer deemed criminal due to the repeal of the ordinance, it would be illogical to sentence him for an offense that no longer exists. The proceedings against Tamayo were therefore dismissed.

Uploaded by

meerah
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
You are on page 1/ 1

Republic of the Philippines

SUPREME COURT
Manila
EN BANC
G.R. No. L-41423             March 19, 1935
THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINE ISLANDS, plaintiff-appellee,
vs.
CRISANTO TAMAYO, defendant-appellant.
Juan Amor and Simeon J. Tolentino for appellant.
Office of the Solicitor-General Hilado for appellee.
HULL, J.:
Appellant was convicted in the justice of the peace court of Magsingal, Province of Ilocos Sur, of a violation of section
municipal ordinance No. 5, series of 1932, of said municipality. Upon appeal to the Court of First Instance of Ilocos S
resulted and a fine was imposed. From that decision this appeal was brought.
While this appeal was pending, the municipal council repealed section 2 in question, which repeal was duly approved
provincial board, and the act complained of, instead of being a violation of the municipal ordinances, is now legal in th
municipality.
Appellant has moved for a dismissal of the action against him on account of that repeal.
In the leading cases of the United States vs. Cuna (12 Phil., 241), and Wing vs. United States (218 U.S., 272), the do
clearly established that in the Philippines repeal of a criminal Act by its reenactment, even without a saving clause, w
destroy criminal liability. But not a single sentence in either decision indicates that there was any desire to hold that a
could be prosecuted, convicted, and punished for acts no longer criminal.
There is no question that a common law and in America a much more favorable attitude towards the accused exists r
statutes that have been repealed than has been adopted here. Our rule is more in conformity with the Spanish doctrin
in Spain, where the offense ceases to be criminal, prosecution cannot be had. (1 Pacheco Commentaries, 296.)
The repeal here was absolute, and not a reenactment and repeal by implication. Nor was there any saving clause. Th
intent as shown by the action of the municipal council is that such conduct, formerly denounced, is no longer deemed
and it would be illogical for this court to attempt to sentence appellant for an offense that no longer exists.
We are therefore of the opinion that the proceedings against appellant must be dismissed. So ordered. Costs de ofici
Avanceña, C.J., Malcolm, Villa-Real, Abad Santos, Vickers, Imperial, Butte, Goddard, and Diaz, JJ., concur.

The Lawphil Project - Arellano Law Foundation

You might also like