G.R. No. L-7206; February 12, 1913
THE UNITED STATES, plaintiff-appellee, vs. MONICO ALMENCION, defendant-appellant.

FACTS

Monico Almencion was charged with falsifying a personal cedula (certificate of residence). He substituted the name “Fortunato Cañete” for “Lucio Cañete” on Lucio’s cedula for the year 1909. His purpose was to make it appear that Fortunato had purchased a cedula for 1909, thereby enabling Fortunato to obtain a cedula for 1910 without paying a penalty. Almencion kept P2 of the P4 given to him by Fortunato, paying only P2 to the municipal treasurer of Mandaue, Cebu. The falsification was discovered when the treasurer demanded to see the 1909 cedula. The Court of First Instance of Cebu convicted Almencion under Section 55 of Act No. 1189 and sentenced him to one year imprisonment and a P2,000 fine. The crime was committed on June 2, 1910. Subsequently, on February 1, 1912, Act No. 2126 was enacted, which prescribed a lower penalty for the same offense.

ISSUE

Whether Act No. 2126, which provides for a more lenient penalty, can be applied retroactively to favor the accused, despite the crime having been committed before its enactment, considering that the offense is punishable under a special law.

RULING

Yes. The Supreme Court applied Act No. 2126 retroactively. Although the offense is penalized by a special law (Act No. 1189, later Act No. 2126), and Article 7 of the Penal Code states that offenses under special laws are not subject to the Code’s provisions, the Court held that Article 22 of the Penal Code is applicable. Article 22 provides that penal laws shall have retroactive effect insofar as they favor the accused. The Court reiterated its ruling in United States vs. Parrone, which held that Act No. 2126 is retroactive and embraces crimes committed prior to its promulgation. Therefore, the more favorable penalty under Act No. 2126 was applied. The judgment of conviction was affirmed but modified, sentencing Almencion to two months imprisonment and a fine of P200.