G.R. No. L-11505; August 25, 1916
THE UNITED STATES, plaintiff-appellee, vs. SATAOA BUNGAOIL, defendant-appellant.

FACTS:
The appellant, Sataoa Bungaoil, was charged with the theft of a cow and calf belonging to one Almonda in the township of Banaao, subprovince of Lepanto. The information alleged the crime was committed “in or about the month of February, 1915.” Upon his plea of guilty, he was convicted and sentenced to one year, eight months, and twenty-one days of prision correccional, an indemnity of P80, with subsidiary imprisonment, and costs. During the trial, however, the evidence presented by the prosecution revealed that the theft actually occurred in the year 1908, not 1915. The defense did not object to this variance in dates during the trial, nor did it claim surprise or prejudice. Instead, the accused proceeded to present his own evidence addressing the same transaction. On appeal, the defense assigned two errors: (1) the trial court erred in not dismissing the charge due to a failure of evidence on a material point (the date) in the information, and (2) the trial court erred in admitting evidence of a crime committed seven years prior to the date alleged.

ISSUE:

2. Whether the trial court erred in imposing a penalty under Act No. 2030, which amended the Penal Code after the commission of the crime in 1908.

RULING:
The Supreme Court AFFIRMED the conviction but MODIFIED the penalty.

2. On the penalty: The crime was committed in 1908. The penalty was imposed under Article 520 of the Penal Code as amended by Act No. 2030, which was enacted later and increased the penalty. Applying the rule against retroactive application of penal laws when they are prejudicial to the accused, the penalty must be imposed according to the law in force at the time of the commission of the crime. With no aggravating or extenuating circumstances, the proper penalty is four months and one day of arresto mayor.

DISPOSITIVE PORTION:
The judgment of the trial court is modified by changing the penalty to four months and one day of arresto mayor. As so modified, the judgment is affirmed. No costs are awarded in this instance.