G.R. No. L-5455
THE UNITED STATES, plaintiff-appellant, vs. TOMAS MOLINA, defendant-appellee.
January 31, 1910.

FACTS:
Tomas Molina was accused of violating Section 4 of Act No. 610 for illegal possession of a firearm on June 24, 1907. While his case was pending, Act No. 610 was repealed by Act No. 1780, which took effect on December 1, 1907. Molina filed a demurrer, arguing that since Act No. 610 had been repealed and Act No. 1780 contained no saving clause for pending actions, there was no longer any law under which he could be punished. The lower court sustained the demurrer and dismissed the complaint, prompting the Attorney-General to appeal.

ISSUE:
Does the repeal of a penal law by a subsequent law penalizing the same offense, without a saving clause for pending actions, deprive the courts of jurisdiction to try and punish offenses committed under the old law prior to its repeal?

RULING:
No. Citing the case of United States vs. Cuna (12 Phil. Rep., 241), the Supreme Court ruled that where an Act penalizing an offense repeals a former Act penalizing the same offense, such repeal does not deprive the courts of jurisdiction to try, convict, and sentence offenders charged with violations of the old law prior to its repeal. Thus, the lower court erred in sustaining the demurrer. The judgment of the lower court was reversed, the demurrer was overruled, and the cause was remanded for further proceedings.