Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 2K views

    US V Diaz - Conde (Ex Post Facto Law)

    Uploaded by

    abby
    The defendants appealed their conviction under the Usury Law (Act No. 2655) for collecting interest above 5% per month on a loan given on December 30, 1915. However, Act No. 2655 did not take effect until May 1, 1916, after the loan contract was executed. The court ruled that applying the usury law retroactively to a contract signed before the law's effective date would be an ex post facto law, which are prohibited. As the defendants' acts of collecting interest were legal at the time, they could not be made criminal by subsequent legislation. Therefore, the usury law did not apply in this case.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    US V Diaz - Conde (Ex Post Facto Law)

    Uploaded by

    abby
    2K views1 page
    The defendants appealed their conviction under the Usury Law (Act No. 2655) for collecting interest above 5% per month on a loan given on December 30, 1915. However, Act No. 2655 did not take effect until May 1, 1916, after the loan contract was executed. The court ruled that applying the usury law retroactively to a contract signed before the law's effective date would be an ex post facto law, which are prohibited. As the defendants' acts of collecting interest were legal at the time, they could not be made criminal by subsequent legislation. Therefore, the usury law did not apply in this case.

    Original Description:

    us-diaz

    Original Title

    US v Diaz - Conde (Ex Post Facto Law)

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    The defendants appealed their conviction under the Usury Law (Act No. 2655) for collecting interest above 5% per month on a loan given on December 30, 1915. However, Act No. 2655 did not take effect until May 1, 1916, after the loan contract was executed. The court ruled that applying the usury law retroactively to a contract signed before the law's effective date would be an ex post facto law, which are prohibited. As the defendants' acts of collecting interest were legal at the time, they could not be made criminal by subsequent legislation. Therefore, the usury law did not apply in this case.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    2K views1 page

    US V Diaz - Conde (Ex Post Facto Law)

    Uploaded by

    abby
    The defendants appealed their conviction under the Usury Law (Act No. 2655) for collecting interest above 5% per month on a loan given on December 30, 1915. However, Act No. 2655 did not take effect until May 1, 1916, after the loan contract was executed. The court ruled that applying the usury law retroactively to a contract signed before the law's effective date would be an ex post facto law, which are prohibited. As the defendants' acts of collecting interest were legal at the time, they could not be made criminal by subsequent legislation. Therefore, the usury law did not apply in this case.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    of 1

    G.R. No.

    L-18208 February 14, 1922

    THE UNITED STATES, plaintiff-appellee,

    vs.

    VICENTE DIAZ CONDE and APOLINARIA R. DE CONDE, defendants-appellants.

    FACTS :

    - That on the 30th day of December, 1915, the alleged offended persons Bartolome Oliveros and Engracia Lianco
    executed and delivered to the defendants a contract (Exhibit B) evidencing the fact that the former had borrowed from
    the latter the sum of P300
    - that, by virtue of the terms of said contract, the said Bartolome Oliveros and Engracia Lianco obligated themselves to
    pay to the defendants interest at the rate of five per cent (5%) per month, payable within the first ten days of each and
    every month, the first payment to be made on the 10th day of January, 1916.
    - record that on the 6th day of May, 1921, a complaint was presented in the Court of First Instance of the city of Manila,
    charging the defendants(VICENTE DIAZ CONDE and APOLINARIA R. DE CONDE) with a violation of the Usury Law (Act
    No. 2655).
    - . The cause was finally brought on for trial on the 1st day of September, 1921. At the close of the trial, and after a
    consideration of the evidence adduced, the Honorable M. V. del Rosario, judge, found that the defendants were guilty
    of the crime charged
    - The appellants now contend:
    (a) That the contract upon which the alleged usurious interest was collected was executed before Act No. 2655 was
    adopted;
    (b) that at the time said contract was made (December 30, 1915), there was no usury law in force in the Philippine
    Islands;
    (c) that said Act No. 2655 did not become effective until the 1st day of May, 1916, or four months and a half after the
    contract in question was executed;
    (d) that said law could have no retroactive effect or operation, and
    (e) that said law impairs the obligation of a contract, and that for all of said reasons the judgment imposed by the lower
    court should be revoked

    ISSUE:

    - W/N Would the usury law apply to the case given that the contract enter by the parties was done on
    December 30, 1915 and the usury law took effect on May 1, 1916.

    RULING:

    - NO. A law imposing a new penalty, or a new liability or disability, or giving a new right of action, must not be construed
    as having a retroactive effect.
    - Ex post facto laws, unless they are favorable to the defendant, are prohibited in this jurisdiction. Every law that makes
    an action, done before the passage of the law, and which was innocent when done, criminal, and punishes such action,
    is an ex post facto law.
    - In the present case Act No. 2655 made an act which had been done before the law was adopted, a criminal act, and to
    make said Act applicable to the act complained of would be to give it an ex post facto operation.
    - For the reason, therefore, that the acts complained of in the present case were legal at the time of their occurrence,
    they cannot be made criminal by any subsequent or ex post facto legislation.

    You might also like