Scribd
Upload
63 views2 pages

People Vs Perfecto

The Supreme Court ruled that Article 256 of the Spanish Penal Code, which Perfecto was charged with violating, was no longer in force after the change in sovereignty over the Philippines from Spain to the United States. The Court found that Article 256 was a political law that protected Spanish officials, and political laws are abrogated when a new sovereignty takes control over a territory. As the new American government established a different system of government, Article 256 contradicted American principles and was implicitly crowded out. Therefore, the Court acquitted Perfecto.

Uploaded by

Lorelain Valerie Imperial
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
63 views2 pages

People Vs Perfecto

The Supreme Court ruled that Article 256 of the Spanish Penal Code, which Perfecto was charged with violating, was no longer in force after the change in sovereignty over the Philippines from Spain to the United States. The Court found that Article 256 was a political law that protected Spanish officials, and political laws are abrogated when a new sovereignty takes control over a territory. As the new American government established a different system of government, Article 256 contradicted American principles and was implicitly crowded out. Therefore, the Court acquitted Perfecto.

Uploaded by

Lorelain Valerie Imperial
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
You are on page 1/ 2

People vs Perfecto

G.R. No. L-18463


October 4, 1922

I. Ticker
Spanish Penal Code

II. Doctrine

It is a general principle of the public law that on acquisition of


territory the previous political relations of the ceded region are totally
abrogated. "Political" is here used to denominate the laws regulating
the relations sustained by the inhabitants to the sovereign.

III. Facts
 August 20, 1920- Fernando M. Guerrero, the Secretary of the
Philippine Senate, discovered that certain documents which
constituted the testimonies given by witnesses in the
investigation of oil companies were missing from his office.
 September 7, 1920- the newspaper La Nacion, edited by Mr.
Gregorio Perfecto, published an article accusing the Philippine
Senate for the loss of the said records and criticizing the Senate
and its members in general. Its article suggested that "the author
or authors of the robbery of the records from the iron safe of the
Senate have, perhaps, but followed the example of certain
Senators who secured their election through fraud and robbery."
 Consequently, on September 15, 1920, the Attorney-General,
through a resolution adopted by the Philippine Senate, filed an
information alleging that the editorial constituted a violation of
article 256 of the Penal Code.
 This resulted to a case being filed against Mr. Perfecto for
violation of Article 256 of the Penal Code. He was found guilty
by the Municipal Trial Court and again in the Court of First
Instance of Manila.
 Perfecto filed an appeal in the Supreme Court to dismiss the
case on the ground that Article 256 was not in force anymore.

IV. Issues

Whether or not Article 256 of the Penal Code still in force despite the
change of Spanish sovereignty to American sovereignty over the
Philippines?
V. Decision / Ruling

 No. The Court stated that during the Spanish Government,


Article 256 of the Spanish Penal Code was enacted to protect
Spanish officials who were the representatives of the King.
 With the change of sovereignty, a new theory of government,
was set up in the Philippines. It was no sense of continuation of
the old laws The Court explains that in the present case, we no
longer have Kings nor its representatives for the provision
to protect. Moreover, with the change of sovereignty over the
Philippines from Spanish to American, it means that the
invoked provision of the Spanish Penal Code (SPC) had
been automatically abrogated.
 Three members of the court believe that Article 256 has been
abrogated completely by the change from Spanish to American
sovereignty over the Philippines, rendering such intent is
contradictory to the ideology of the new government
 Article 256 of the Penal Code goes against fundamental
principles of the American system of government. This article
was crowded out by implication as soon as the United States
established its authority in the Philippine Islands.
 The Court determined Article 256 of the SPC to be ‘political’ in
nature for it is about the relation of the State to its inhabitants,
thus, the Court emphasized that ‘it is a general principle of the
public law that on acquisition of territory, the previous
political relations of the ceded region are totally abrogated.’
 Hence, Article 256 of the SPC is considered no longer in
force and cannot be applied to the present case. Therefore,
respondent was acquitted.

You might also like