Pp v Diaz Conde Digest 1922

G.R. No. L-18208 February 14, 1922

THE UNITED STATES, plaintiff-appellee,
vs.
VICENTE DIAZ CONDE and APOLINARIA R. DE CONDE, defendants-appellants.

Araneta & Zaragoza for appellants.

Attorney-General Villareal for appellee.

JOHNSON, J.:

Facts of the Case:

      On December 30, 1915, Bartolome Oliveros and Engracio Liaco borrowed from Vicente Diaz-Conde and Apolinaria R. De Conde the sum of P300. They obligated themselves to pay the defendants 5% per month, payable within the first ten days beginning on January 1916.

On May 1, 1916, Act No. 2655 (Usury Law) took effect.

Issue: Whether or not the defendants violated Act No. 2655.

Held: 

             No. If a contract is legal at its inception, it cannot be rendered illegal by any subsequent legislation. The obligation of the contract is the law which binds the parties to perform their agreement if it is not contrary to the law of the land, morals or public order. That law must govern and control the contract in every aspect in which it is intended to bear upon it, whether it affect its validity, construction, or discharge.

In the present case, making Act No. 2655 applicable to the act complained of which had been done before the law was adopted, a criminal act, would give it an ex post facto operation.

              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. Ex post facto laws are absolutely prohibited unless its retroactive effect is favorable to the defendant.

            The decision of the lower court is revoked and the complaint dismissed.