Scribd
Upload
50 views

G.R. No. 4504. December 15, 1908 - CARSON: U.S. vs. Cuna, 12 Phil 241, December 15, 1908

The defendant was charged with violating the Opium Law by selling opium to a woman in June 1907. The defendant argued the case should be dismissed because the Opium Law was repealed in October 1907. The trial court agreed and dismissed the case. However, the appellate court held that the courts have jurisdiction over offenses committed before the repeal. Even though the law was repealed, the defendant can still be convicted and punished under the original law since the penalty was not more favorable in the new law. The trial court's decision sustaining the demurrer was reversed.

Uploaded by

Kate Bianca Caindoy
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
50 views

G.R. No. 4504. December 15, 1908 - CARSON: U.S. vs. Cuna, 12 Phil 241, December 15, 1908

The defendant was charged with violating the Opium Law by selling opium to a woman in June 1907. The defendant argued the case should be dismissed because the Opium Law was repealed in October 1907. The trial court agreed and dismissed the case. However, the appellate court held that the courts have jurisdiction over offenses committed before the repeal. Even though the law was repealed, the defendant can still be convicted and punished under the original law since the penalty was not more favorable in the new law. The trial court's decision sustaining the demurrer was reversed.

Uploaded by

Kate Bianca Caindoy
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
You are on page 1/ 2

U.S. vs.

Cuna, 12 Phil 241, December 15, 1908

G.R. No. 4504. December 15, 1908 | CARSON

FACTS

On August 12,1907, the provincial fiscal filed in the Court of First Instance of the Province of Isabela,
charging the defendant Chinaman Cuna (alias Sy Conco) for the violation of section 5 of Act No. 1461
“Opium Law” of the Philippine Commission.

On June 30, 1907 defendant sold for tents a small quantity of opium to Apolinario Gumpal, a Filipino
woman who was neither a doctor, pharmacist, vender of opium with license nor an inveterate user of
opium.

The defendant demurred to the information on the ground that the said act was repealed by Act. No
1761 which took effect on October 17,1907, and since it was repealed there is no law in force which
penalizes the offense.

The trial court dismissed the case since no law in force, in accordance with the accused, if he be tried
and convicted, can be punished for the offense committed in June 1907. “The time when the defendant
alleged committed the offense, the Opium Law was in force and continue to be in force until October
17, 1907 , when it was superseded by a new Act, No. 1761, which, in section 33 thereof, repeals Act
No. 1461, without excepting from the provisions of the repealing clause cases pending at the time of
its enactment, for the infraction of Act No. 1461, and without prescribing what disposition should be
made of such cases.”

The Government appealed from the judgment sustaining the demurrer and dismissing the information.

ISSUE

Whether or not the defendant should be convicted even when the law was repealed?

RULING

The court held that , the doctrine of English and American common law relied upon by counsel for
defendant is not and has not been the accepted doctrine in this jurisdiction, and that, in accordance
with the accepted doctrine, the courts in these Islands are not deprived of jurisdiction to try, convict,
and sentence offenders who have violated the provisions of Act No. 1461 prior to the date when Act No.
1761 went into effect, notwithstanding the provision of the latter Act repealing Act No. 1461; and that
the penalty prescribed by the repealing Act for the violation charged in the information not being more
favorable to the accused than that prescribed in the old law, the penalty to be imposed is that
prescribed by the old law.

Ratio Decidendi: Yes. The reliance on English and American common law doctrines cannot be given
credence since such is not accepted in this jurisdiction. Thus, the courts have jurisdiction over the case—
to try, convict and sentence offenders. Moreover, even if Act No. 1761 repealed Act No. 1461, no
retroactive effect of the law shall take effect in that the new law penalized the same act in the repealed
law; hence, the new law cannot be said to be more favorable to the accused.
Ruling: The judgment of the trial court sustaining the demurrer to the complaint interposed by the
accused is reversed, and the record will be returned to that court for further proceedings in accordance
with the law.

You might also like