G.R. No. 4504 - People vs Cuna

On August 12, 1907, the provincial fiscal in Isabela filed an information in the Court of First Instance charging the defendant, Chinaman Cuna (alias Sy Conco), with violating section 5 of Act No. 1461 (the "Opium Law").
The charge arose from an incident on June 30, 1907, in Echague, Isabela, where the defendant allegedly sold a small quantity of opium for ten cents to Apolinaria Gumpal, a Filipino woman who was neither licensed nor qualified under the law to vend opium.

The information alleged an offense under Act No. 1461 committed on June 30, 1907, in Echague, Isabela, clearly identifying the time and place of the alleged violation.
Act No. 1461 had been repealed by Act No. 1761, which was enacted on October 10, 1907, and took effect on October 17, 1907, during the pendency of the case.
Since the repealing law did not provide any exception for pending cases, no law was in force at the time of trial to penalize the alleged act, thereby stripping the court of jurisdiction.

The trial court, after considering the arguments and the cited precedents (U. S. vs. Tynen; Mongeon vs. People; State vs. Wilder), sustained the demurrer and dismissed the information.
The court held that at the time of the alleged offense, Act No. 1461 was still in force, but by the time of trial, after October 17, 1907, the new statute had repealed the old one, leaving no enforceable law regarding the offense.

The Government pursued an appeal, raising the single question whether the repeal effected by section 33 of Act No. 1761 should be construed to extinguish the jurisdiction of the courts over offenses committed under Act No. 1461 before its repeal.

Does the express repeal of Act No. 1461 by section 33 of Act No. 1761 deprive the courts of jurisdiction to try, convict, and sentence persons for offenses committed under Act No. 1461 before the new act took effect?

Should the repeal be interpreted as having a retroactive effect that remits or extinguishes penalties or liability incurred under the old law for offenses committed prior to its repeal?
In cases where the penalty prescribed by the repealing law is identical to that of the repealed law, is the defendant still liable to be punished under the old law?