G.R. No.

L-19190 November 29, 1922 (44 PHILS 126)
THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINE ISLANDS, plaintiff-appellee,
vs.
VENANCIO CONCEPCION, defendant-appellant.
Recaredo Ma. Calvo for appellant.
Attorney-General Villa-Real for appellee.
MALCOLM, J.:
In the interpretation and construction, the primary rule is to ascertain and
give effect to the intention of the Legislature. Section 49 in relation to Sec. 25 of
Act No. 2747 provides a punishment for any person who shall violate any
provisions of the Act. Defendant contends that the repeal of these Sections by
Act No. 2938 has served to take away basis for criminal prosecution. The Court
holds that where an act of the Legislature which penalizes an offense repeals a
former act which penalized the same offense, such repeal does not have the
effect of thereafter depriving the Courts of jurisdiction to try, convict and
sentence offenders charged with violations of the old law.

FACTS:
Venancio Concepcion, as President of the Philippine National Bank and as
memberof the board of directors of this bank, was charged in the Court of First
Instance ofCagayan with a violation of section 35 of Act No. 2747."The National
Bank shall not, directly or indirectly, grant loans to any of themembers of the
board of directors of the bank nor to agents of the branch banks."Counsel for the
defense argues:Was the granting of a credit of P300,000 to the co-partnership,
"Puno yConcepcion, S. en C." by Venancio Concepcion, President of the
PhilippineNational Bank, an "indirect loan" within the meaning of section 35 of Act
No. 2747?
Defendant authorized an extension of credit in favour of Concepcion, a co-
partnership. Defendant’s wife was a director of this co-partnership. Defendant
was found guilty of violating Sec. 35 of Act No. 2747 which says that
“The National Bank shall not, directly or indirectly, grant loans to any of the
members of the Board of Directors of the bank nor to agents of the branch
banks.” This Section was in effect in 1919 but was repealed in Act No. 2938
approved on January 30, 1921.
ISSUE:
W/N Defendant can be convicted of violating Sections of Act No. 2747,
which were repealed by Act No. 2938.
DECISION:
In the interpretation and construction of statutes, the primary rule is to ascertain
andgive effect to the intention of the Legislature.In this instance, the purpose of
the Legislature is plainly to erect a wall of safetyagainst temptation for a director
of the bank. The prohibition against indirect loans isa recognition of the familiar
maxim that no man may serve two masters Ñ thatwhere personal interest clashes
with fidelity to duty the latter almost always suffers.If, therefore, it is shown that
the husband is financially interested in the success orfailure of his wife's business
venture, a loan to partnership of which the wife of adirector is a member, falls
within the
prohibition. A loan, therefore, to a partnership of which the wife of a director of a b
ank is amember, is an indirect loan to such director.That it was the intention of
the Legislature to prohibit exactly such an occurrence isshown by the
acknowledged fact that in this instance the defendant was tempted tomingle his
personal and family affairs with his official duties, and to permit the loanP300,000
to a partnership of no established reputation and without asking forcollateral
security.No reversible error was committed in the trial of this case, and that the
defendanthas been proved guilty beyond a reasonable doubt of the crime
charged in theinformation. Judgment is affirmed.

HELD: