G.R. No.: L-11555
Title: The United States vs. Gabino Soliman

FACTS:
Gabino Soliman was charged with perjury under Section 3 of Act No. 1697. The charge stemmed from his testimony in a prior criminal case for estafa, where he falsely swore that an extrajudicial confession (which implicated him) was not executed voluntarily but was instead obtained by the police through force, intimidation, and torture. The trial judge in the estafa case acquitted Soliman, citing reasonable doubt regarding the voluntariness of the confession, thereby establishing the materiality of Soliman’s false testimony. He was convicted of perjury and sentenced to six months’ imprisonment and a P300 fine. However, after his conviction but before the appeal was decided, Act No. 1697 was repealed by the Administrative Code, which took effect on July 1, 1916.
ISSUE:
1. Whether the repeal of Act No. 1697 extinguished Soliman’s criminal liability for perjury committed before the repeal.
2. If not, what penalty should be imposed given the repeal and the potential revival of the prior penal provisions of the Spanish Penal Code.
RULING:
The Supreme Court affirmed the conviction but modified the penalty.
1. On the Effect of Repeal: The Court held that the repeal of a penal law does not deprive the courts of jurisdiction to try, convict, and sentence offenders for violations committed before the repeal, unless the new law wholly fails to penalize the act. The rule in the Philippines, following Spanish legal principles and Article 22 of the Penal Code, is that penal laws have retroactive effect only when they are favorable to the accused.
2. On the Applicable Penalty: The Court ruled that the repeal of Act No. 1697 had the effect of reviving the provisions on perjury in the Spanish Penal Code (which it had previously repealed by implication). Since the new law (the revived Penal Code provisions) provided a different penalty, the rule is to impose the penalty more favorable to the convict. Comparing the penalties, the Court found the penalty under the revived Penal Code provisions to be more favorable. Therefore, the penalty was modified from the original sentence to that prescribed under the applicable articles of the Penal Code.
3. On the Separate Opinion (Res Judicata): A separate opinion argued for acquittal on the ground of res judicata, contending that the issue of the confession’s voluntariness had been conclusively litigated and decided in the estafa case, barring the perjury prosecution. The majority did not adopt this view, focusing instead on the penalty issue.

Dispositive Portion: The judgment of conviction was affirmed, but the sentence was modified in accordance with the more favorable penalties under the revived provisions of the Penal Code.