United States v. Molina
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: The defendant, Tomas Molina, was accused of violating section 4 of Act No. 610 of the Philippine Commission for being found in possession of a revolver without a license to carry the same. The alleged offense occurred on or about June 24, 1907. Procedural History: The accused presented a demurrer to the information, arguing that Act No. 610 had been repealed by Act No. 1780, which took effect on December 1, 1907, while the case was pending. The defendant contended that Act No. 1780 contained no exception for pending actions and thus, there was no law under which he could be punished. The court below sustained the demurrer and dismissed the complaint. The Petition: The Attorney-General appealed the order sustaining the demurrer and dismissing the complaint to the Supreme Court.
Issue(s)
Whether the repeal of Act No. 610 by Act No. 1780 divested the courts of jurisdiction to prosecute offenses committed under the former law prior to its repeal. Whether the demurrer to the information was properly sustained.
Ruling
The judgment of the court below is reversed, the demurrer overruled, and the cause remanded for further proceedings.
Ratio Decidendi
On the issue of jurisdiction and the effect of repeal: The Supreme Court held that the repeal of a penal statute does not deprive the courts of jurisdiction to try, convict, and sentence offenders charged with violations of the old law prior to its repeal. This principle was established in the case of United States vs. Cuna (12 Phil. Rep., 241). The Court reasoned that the repeal of a penal law does not extinguish the offense committed under the old law, nor does it remove the legal consequences of such an offense. The intention of the legislature in repealing a penal statute is generally to replace it with a new one, or to remove the prohibition entirely. However, unless the repealing act explicitly states that pending actions should be dismissed or that offenders should be discharged, the jurisdiction of the courts to prosecute offenses committed under the prior law remains intact. The Court found that Act No. 1780 did not contain any such explicit provision to divest the courts of jurisdiction over offenses committed before its effectivity. Therefore, the defendant could still be prosecuted under Act No. 610 for the offense committed on June 24, 1907, even though Act No. 610 was repealed by Act No. 1780 on December 1, 1907. On the demurrer: Consequently, the demurrer to the information, which was based on the alleged repeal of the penal statute, was improperly sustained by the court below. The existence of a repealing statute does not automatically abate a prosecution for acts committed prior to the repeal. The Court found that the information sufficiently charged an offense under Act No. 610, and the subsequent repeal of that act did not negate the court's authority to proceed with the case. The cause was therefore remanded for further proceedings consistent with this ruling.
Main Doctrine
The repeal of a penal statute does not deprive the courts of jurisdiction to try, convict, and sentence offenders for violations of the old law committed prior to its repeal, unless the repealing act explicitly provides otherwise.