G.R. No. L-1 : October 18, 1901
THE UNITED STATES, complainant-appellee, vs. MANUEL SY-TAY, defendant-appellant.

FACTS:
The accused, Manuel Sy-Tay, was tried and convicted for the crime of seduction in the court of the justice of the peace of Binondo. He appealed this conviction to the Court of First Instance of Manila, which affirmed the judgment of the lower court. From this affirmance, the accused appealed further to the Supreme Court.

ISSUE:
Whether the Supreme Court has jurisdiction to entertain the appeal from the judgment of the Court of First Instance affirming a conviction from a justice of the peace court in a case for seduction.

RULING:
No. The Supreme Court granted the motion to dismiss the appeal for lack of jurisdiction. Section 43 of General Orders, No. 58 (the then governing procedural law) provides that in cases originating in a justice of the peace court, the judgment of the Court of First Instance on appeal is final, except only when the case involves the constitutionality or validity of a law. The accused contended that General Orders, No. 58 had repealed the Spanish Code of Criminal Procedure and that he should have been tried under its provisions. The Court held that a question of whether one law repeals another does not involve the “validity of a law” within the meaning of the exception. The exception refers solely to cases where a law is alleged to be invalid from its enactment. Since no such contention was made, the judgment of the Court of First Instance was final and not subject to further appeal. The case was remanded to the Court of First Instance for execution of the judgment.