G.R. No. L-5403
THE UNITED STATES, plaintiff-appellant, vs. THE CHINAMAN TONGA, defendant-appellee.
January 15, 1910

FACTS:
On November 23, 1907, The United States, through the fiscal, filed a complaint against The Chinaman Tonga, charging him with violating Section 5 of Act No. 1461 (the “Opium Law”). The complaint alleged that on or about July 9, 1907, Tonga sold opium to Vicente Aron, who was not a licensed professional or registered user. Tonga filed a demurrer, arguing that Act No. 1461 had been repealed by Act No. 1761 , which became effective on October 17, 1907, during the pendency of the case. Since the repealing Act No. 1761 made no provision for cases pending under Act No. 1461 , Tonga contended there was no law in force to punish him, and thus the court lacked jurisdiction. The lower court sustained the demurrer, dismissed the case, and set Tonga at liberty, agreeing that there was no law under which he could be punished for an offense committed in July 1907. The prosecuting attorney appealed this decision.

ISSUE:
Does the repeal of a penal law by a subsequent law, without an express provision for pending cases, deprive courts of jurisdiction to try, convict, and sentence offenders for violations committed prior to the repeal?

RULING:
No. The Supreme Court reversed the judgment of the lower court, citing its established doctrine from United States vs. El Chino Cuna (alias Sy Conco) (12 Phil. Rep., 241) and subsequent cases. The Court held 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 Court found no reason to change this doctrine. Therefore, the case was remanded to the lower court for further proceedings in accordance with law.