On the 23d day of November, 1907, the fiscal of said province presented a complaint against the defendant charging him with a violation of section 5 of Act No.  1461 of the Philippine Commission, as follows:

"That the said Chinaman, Tonga, on or about the 9th day of July, 1907,  and  at Echague, Province of  Isabela, P. I., sold a small amount of opium  valued at T0.60 to the Filipino Vicente Aron,  who was not a physician, a pharmacist, a duly licensed seller, nor an inveterate user  of opium duly registered."

To this complaint the  defendant presented the following demurrer:

"1. That the complaint alleges that the  defendant, on the 9th day of July 1907, in  the town of  Echague,  Province of Isabela, P. I.,  violated the provisions of section 5 of Act No. 1461.

"2. That said Act No. 1461 was abolished by Act No. 1761, passed by the honorable Philippine Commission on October 10, 1907, which became effective on the 17th day of October, 1907, and during the pendency of  this case.

"3.. That said Act No. 1461 having been abolished while this action was pending and the repealing Act having no provision regarding pending cases, there  is no  law now in force by which the alleged offense is punished.  For this reason this court has no jurisdiction over the subject-matter.

"In view of the foregoing the defendant asks the court to dismiss the case and to set him at liberty, with costs  de oficio."

Upon a consideration  of the demurrer  the lower court rendered the following decision:

"In this cause the accused  is charged with the violation of Act No.  1461, the complaint alleging that on or about the 9th of July, 1907, in Echague, Province of Isabela, the accused did sell an amount of opium of the value of sixty cents to  one Filipino, Vicente Aron, who was  neither a physician, pharmacist, nor licensed seller or registered user of opium.

"To this complaint the accused filed a demurrer at the session held on the 25th of November, 1907, alleging that the court is without jurisdiction  of this  action for the reasons that said Act No.  1461 was repealed by Act No. 1761, approved by the honorable Commission of the  Philippines on  the 10th day of October, 1907, and which Act No. 1761 went into effect on the 17th  day of October, 1907; that said Act No. 1761 makes  no provision for the continuation of causes pending under  the former Act No.  1461, and that there is no law now in force by which the accused can be punished for any offense committed under Act No. 1461.

"This  demurrer came on for hearing before this court on  the 26th day of  November, 1907, the accused  being represented by Mr. S. A. Harvey and the prosecution by Mr. Vicente Nepomuceno, district fiscal.

"After hearing the arguments of the attorneys and ex- amining  the record,  the  court finds that at the  time it  is alleged that  this  accused committed the offense charged, Act No. 1461, known as the 'Opium Law,' was in  force and continued so until the 17th of October, 1907, when  it was succeeded by a new Act, No. 1761, and which,  in section 33, repeals Act No. 1461, making no provision whatever for the  continuation of cases pending then for violation  of Act No. 1461, or providing,  in any manner, what disposition should be made of them.

"This being true, the court is of the opinion that this case must be dismissed because there is  no law now in  force under which this accused,  if tried and convicted, can be punished for the offense committed in July, 1907.  (U. S. vs. Tynen, 11 Wall., 88; Mongeon vs. People, 55 N. Y., 613; State vs. Wilder, 47 Ga., 522.)

"The court,  therefore,  sustains this demurrer  and dismisses the case, the costs to be taxed de oficio"

From this judgment of the lower court, the prosecuting attorney appealed and in this court presented a brief asking that the judgment of the lower court be reversed and that the cause be remanded for further proceedings in accordance with  law.   The defendant and appellee presented no brief here.

The questions presented by this appeal are  identically analogous with the questions presented in the case United States vs. El Chino Cuna  (alias Sy Conco)  heretofore decided by this court (12 Phil. Rep., 241).

After a full consideration of the questions then presented this court decided 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 doctrine established in this decision has been followed by this court in the following cases: U. S. vs. Juliana Aron (12 Phil. Rep., 778) ; U. S. vs. Filomena Bernarda (12 Phil. Rep., 778) ; U. S. vs.  Raymunda Kulang (No. 5404) ;[1] U. S. vs. Vicente Aron (No. 5405);[1] U. S. vs. Catalino Gaffud (No. 5406); [1] U. S. vs. Modesto Dumon  (No. 5407)^[1] U. S. vs. Sebastian Dayag (No. 5409). [1]

We see no reason for changing the doctrine established. 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 the lower court for further proceedings in accordance with law   So ordered.

Arellano,  C.  J.,  Torres,  Mapa, Carson,  Moreland, and Elliott, JJ., concur.

---

^[1] Not reported.