G.R. No. L-5455 - JANUARY 1910 - PHILIPPINE JURISPRUDENCE CASE NUMBERCASE TITLE G.R. No. L-5455January 31, 1910 United States vs. Tomas Molina G.R. No. L-5151January 31, 1910 United States vs. Geronimo Gellada G.R. No. L-5117January 31, 1910 Marcelo Mantile, et al. vs. Alejandro Cajucum, et al. G.R. No. L-5290January 28, 1910 United States vs. Salustiano Pulido, et al. G.R. No. L-4145January 28, 1910 Domingo Guitierrez vs. Mariano Rosario, et al. G.R. No. L-5253January 27, 1910 E. W. White vs. Rafael Enriquez, et al. G.R. No. L-4913January 27, 1910 Severino Villarrus vs. Isidro Azarraga G.R. No. L-5265January 26, 1910 Alfredo Chanco vs. Municipality of Romblon, et al. G.R. No. L-5060January 26, 1910 United States vs. Luis Toribio G.R. No. L-5504January 24, 1910 Antonio Consunji vs. Maria D. Tison G.R. No. L-5095January 24, 1910 Laureano Arzadon vs. Clotilde Arzadon G.R. No. L-5038January 24, 1910 Insular Government vs. Ling Su Fan G.R. No. L-5513January 15, 1910 United States vs. Celestino Tolentino G.R. No. L-5482January 15, 1910 United States vs. Lim Chingco G.R. No. L-5476January 15, 1910 United States vs. Daniel Carlos G.R. No. L-5403January 15, 1910 United States vs. Chinaman Tonga G.R. No. L-5315January 15, 1910 Madrigal & Co. vs. W. S. Stevenson & Co. G.R. No. L-5283January 15, 1910 United States vs. Tomas Umali G.R. No. L-5270January 15, 1910 United States vs. H. N. BULL G.R. No. L-4614January 15, 1910 United States vs. Esteban Montenegro G.R. No. L-5201January 13, 1910 Roman Cajuigan vs. Mariano Natividad, et al. G.R. No. L-5334January 10, 1910 Calixto Mainit, et al. vs. Vicente Bandoy, et al. G.R. No. L-5236January 10, 1910 Pedro Martinez vs. Ong Pong Co, et al. G.R. No. L-5141January 10, 1910 United States vs. Pedro A. Reyes G.R. No. L-4980January 10, 1910 United States vs. Irineo A. San Jose G.R. No. L-4479January 10, 1910 Silvestre Arzadon vs. Dionision Chanco, et al. G.R. No. L-4040January 10, 1910 Jose Rabino vs. Tomas Ravida G.R. No. L-5398January 7, 1910 Matilde G. Aramburu vs. Angel Ortiz The Lawphil Project - Arellano Law Foundation, Inc. United States vs. Tomas Molina United States vs. Geronimo Gellada Marcelo Mantile, et al. vs. Alejandro Cajucum, et al. United States vs. Salustiano Pulido, et al. Domingo Guitierrez vs. Mariano Rosario, et al. E. W. White vs. Rafael Enriquez, et al. Severino Villarrus vs. Isidro Azarraga Alfredo Chanco vs. Municipality of Romblon, et al. United States vs. Luis Toribio Antonio Consunji vs. Maria D. Tison Laureano Arzadon vs. Clotilde Arzadon Insular Government vs. Ling Su Fan United States vs. Celestino Tolentino United States vs. Lim Chingco United States vs. Daniel Carlos United States vs. Chinaman Tonga Madrigal & Co. vs. W. S. Stevenson & Co. United States vs. Tomas Umali United States vs. H. N. BULL United States vs. Esteban Montenegro Roman Cajuigan vs. Mariano Natividad, et al. Calixto Mainit, et al. vs. Vicente Bandoy, et al. Pedro Martinez vs. Ong Pong Co, et al. United States vs. Pedro A. Reyes United States vs. Irineo A. San Jose Silvestre Arzadon vs. Dionision Chanco, et al. Jose Rabino vs. Tomas Ravida Matilde G. Aramburu vs. Angel Ortiz The Lawphil Project - Arellano Law Foundation, Inc.
Republic of the Philippines
SUPREME COURT
Manila
EN BANC
G.R. No. L-5455 January 31, 1910
THE UNITED STATES,plaintiff-appellant,
vs.
TOMAS MOLINA,defendant-appellee.
Attorney-General Villamor, for appellant.
MORELAND,J.:
The defendant was accused of a violation of section 4 of Act No. 610 of the Philippine Commission in that he on or about the 24th day of June, 1907, in the municipality of Salona, Province of Cagayan, not being a soldier of the Army of the United States and not being by law authorized to use or possess a firearm, was found in possession of revolver No. 160528, without a license to carry the same as provided by law.
The accused presented a demurrer to the information, alleging therein that Act No. 610, under which he was accused, had been repealed by Act No. 1780 of the Philippine Commission, which went into effect on the 1st day of December, 1907, while this present cause was pending. The defendant claims further that Act No. 1780 contains no exception with reference to actions pending at the time of its publication and concludes that there is no law in force under which he can be punished for the crime alleged in the complaint.
The court below sustained the demurrer and dismissed the complaint. From the order sustaining the demurrer and dismissing the complaint, the Attorney-General appealed to this court.
The case of the United Statesvs. Cuna (12 Phil. Rep., 241) is decisive of the question raised in this case. In that case the court held, in substance, that where an Act of the Commission or of the Philippine 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 prior to its repeal.
The judgment of the court below is, therefore, reversed, the demurrer overruled, and the cause remanded for further proceedings. So ordered.
Arellano, C.J., Torres, Mapa, Johnson, Carson and Elliott, JJ.,concur.