Valeriano Valensoy y Masa was charged in the Court  of First Instance of  Manila with  a  violation  of  section 26, Act No. 1780  (concealment of a bolo, about 9" blade with a leather sheath, a  deadly weapon)  in criminal case No. 32068.  He moved to quash the information  on the ground that  as  the title of Act No. 1780, to wit: "An  Act  to regulate the importation, acquisition, possession, use,  and transfer of  firearms, and to prohibit the possession of same except in compliance with the provisions of this Act," does not embrace weapon other  than firearms, the  inclusion  of section 26 in the said Act outlawing the concealment about one's person of a bowie knife, dirk, dagger, kris, or other deadly  weapon, violates  the  constitutional provision that "No  bill  which may  be enacted into law  shall embrace more than one subject which  shall be expressed in the title of the  bill." ¹  The trial court denied the motion  on the ground that at the time of the enactment of Act No. 1780 the prohibition had reference to private  or loeai bills only and  "that when a law containing a subject-matter  not expressed in the title is Valid  under existing constitutional provisions when enacted it  remains  valid  thereafter regardless of any change or amendment in such constitutional provision which  would  have  otherwise rendered the  law void had  the amendment or the' change existed at the time of the enactment  of the bill  into law."

At the  trial the defendant,  after consultation with counsel de oficio, admitted the facts alleged in the information but asserted that he was not  guilty of any offense  for the reasons already stated.   Whereupon,  the trial court,  reiterating the grounds relied upon  in the order denying the motion to quash, found the defendant guilty as  charged and sentenced him to pay a fine of P10, with subsidiary imprisonment in case of insolvency, and to pay the costs.  The defendant has  appealed.

At the  time of the enactment of Act No.  1780 on  12 October 1907,  the constitutional  prohibition  against  the enactment of  bills  into law embracing more  than  one subject not expressed in the  title of the bills, referred to private or local bills only.  Section 5 of the Act of Congress of 1 July 1902, the Organic  Law  then  in force, in part provided

That no private ox local bill which may be enacted  into law shall embrace more than one subject,  and that  such shall be expressed in the title of the bill.

Counsel de oficio  for the appellant contends that when the Constitution took effect on 8 February 1935 providing City of Bacolod, et al. vs. Judge Enriquez, etc., et al. that "No bill which may be enacted into law shall embrace more than one subject which shall be expressed in the title of the bill," Act No. 1780, validly passed under the Act of Congress of 1 July 1902, became repugnant to, or was repealed by, the Constitution.  This  constitutional  provision has reference to bills henceforth to be  enacted into law and not to a law in force and existing at the time the Constitution was adopted or took effect.   It refers to the  procedure  to be followed by the  Congress in  the enactment of  laws.  The provisions  of section 26 of  Act  No. 1780 germane to  the  subject  expressed  in  the  title of the Act validly  enacted  under  the  Organic  Law  then  in force (Act of Congress of  1 July 1902) remained  operative  at the time  the Constitution took effect because it was not inconsistent with the Constitution, pursuant to section  2, Article XVI, of the Constitution,  which  provides:

All laws of the  Philippine Islands shall  continue  in  force  until the inauguration of the Commonwealth of.the Philippines; thereafter, such laws shall remain operative, unless inconsistent with this  Constitution, until amended,  altered, modified, or repealed by the  Congress of the Philippines, and all references in such laws to the  Government  or officials of the Philippines shall be construed, in so far as applicable, to refer to  the Government and corresponding officials under this Constitution. The judgment appealed from  is  affirmed,  with costs against the  appellant.

Bengzon, Montemayor, Reyes, A., Bautista Angela, Labrador, Conception, Reyes, J. B. L., Endencia, and  Felix, JJ., concur.

---

¹ Section 21(1), Article VI, of the Constitution.