Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 65 views

    17 - US v. DIAZ CONDE

    Uploaded by

    mark anthony mansueto
    The defendants loaned money to borrowers in December 1915 with an interest rate of 5% per month, payable monthly. The Usury Law took effect in May 1916, after the loan was executed. In 1921, a complaint was filed against the defendants for violating the Usury Law. The lower court found the defendants guilty. However, the Supreme Court ruled that applying the Usury Law would be ex post facto since the loan was legal when executed. The Court also noted that a legal contract cannot later be rendered illegal by new legislation. Therefore, the complaint was dismissed and the defendants were discharged.

    Copyright:

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

    17 - US v. DIAZ CONDE

    Uploaded by

    mark anthony mansueto
    65 views2 pages
    The defendants loaned money to borrowers in December 1915 with an interest rate of 5% per month, payable monthly. The Usury Law took effect in May 1916, after the loan was executed. In 1921, a complaint was filed against the defendants for violating the Usury Law. The lower court found the defendants guilty. However, the Supreme Court ruled that applying the Usury Law would be ex post facto since the loan was legal when executed. The Court also noted that a legal contract cannot later be rendered illegal by new legislation. Therefore, the complaint was dismissed and the defendants were discharged.

    Original Title

    17- US v. DIAZ CONDE

    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 loaned money to borrowers in December 1915 with an interest rate of 5% per month, payable monthly. The Usury Law took effect in May 1916, after the loan was executed. In 1921, a complaint was filed against the defendants for violating the Usury Law. The lower court found the defendants guilty. However, the Supreme Court ruled that applying the Usury Law would be ex post facto since the loan was legal when executed. The Court also noted that a legal contract cannot later be rendered illegal by new legislation. Therefore, the complaint was dismissed and the defendants were discharged.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    65 views2 pages

    17 - US v. DIAZ CONDE

    Uploaded by

    mark anthony mansueto
    The defendants loaned money to borrowers in December 1915 with an interest rate of 5% per month, payable monthly. The Usury Law took effect in May 1916, after the loan was executed. In 1921, a complaint was filed against the defendants for violating the Usury Law. The lower court found the defendants guilty. However, the Supreme Court ruled that applying the Usury Law would be ex post facto since the loan was legal when executed. The Court also noted that a legal contract cannot later be rendered illegal by new legislation. Therefore, the complaint was dismissed and the defendants were discharged.

    Copyright:

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

    17- US v. DIAZ CONDE.

    docx

    1
    17- US v. DIAZ CONDE

    G.R. No. L-18208 – United States VS Vicente Diaz Conde and Apolinaria
    R. De Conde
    February 14, 1922 En Banc

    Johnson, J.:

    Facts:

    On 30 December 1915, Bartolome Oliveros and Engracia Lianco borrowed


    P300 from the defendants and by virtue of a contract, the former obligated
    themselves with the interest rate of 5% per month, payable within the first
    10 days of every month, and the first payment shall be made on 10 January
    1916.
    Usury Law (Act. 2655) took effect on 01 May 1916, or four months
    subsequent to the execution of said contract.
    On 21 May 1921, a complaint was filed against the defendants in violation
    of the Usury Law. The Court of First Instance of Manila found the
    defendants guilty and sentenced them to pay a fine of P120 and in case of
    insolvency, to suffer subsidiary imprisonment in accordance with the
    provisions of law.
    The appellants contend that:
    The contract upon which the alleged usurious interest was collected was
    executed before Act No. 2655 was adopted;
    At the time said contract was made (December 30, 1915), there was no
    usury law in force in the Philippine Islands;
    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;
    Said law could have no retroactive effect or operation;
    Said law impairs the obligation of a contract;
    All of said reasons the judgment imposed by the lower court should be
    revoked; that the complaint should be dismissed, and that they should each
    be discharged from the custody of the law.
    The lower court opined that even though the contract was established prior
    to the passage of Act No. 2655, the defendants still collected a usurious
    amount of interest after the adoption of said law and therefore, violated such
    law and must be punished in accordance to Usury Law.
    17- US v. DIAZ CONDE.docx

    2
    Issue:

    W/N the defendants are guilty in violation of Usury Law (Act. No. 2655).

    Ruling:

    No. An ex post facto law is a law that makes an action, done before the
    passage of the law, and which was innocent when done, criminal, and
    punishes such action. In the present case, the defendants executed an act
    which was legal before the Usury Law. To make said law applicable to the
    defendants’ previous act would render it an ex post facto operation.
    Moreover, if a contract is legal at its inception, it cannot be rendered illegal
    by any subsequent legislation. Also, no law shall be passed impairing the
    obligation of contracts. If a law is passed rendering the opposite effect, the
    law is null and void with respect to Jones Law.

    Wherefore, all premises considered, the higher court hereby decide that the
    acts complained of the defendants did not constitute a crime at the time they
    were committed, and therefore the sentence of the lower court should be,
    and is hereby, revoked; and it is hereby ordered and decreed that the
    complaint be dismissed and that the defendants be discharged from the
    custody of the law, with costs de oficio.

    You might also like