Location via proxy:   [ UP ]  
[Report a bug]   [Manage cookies]                
Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 55 views

    People vs. Valensoy

    Uploaded by

    Prince Cayabyab
    Valeriano Valensoy y Masa was charged with concealing a bolo in violation of Section 26 of Act No. 1780. He argued this section was unconstitutional since it prohibited weapons other than firearms, which was not expressed in the title of the Act. The court denied this, finding that when the Act was passed in 1907, the constitutional restriction on titles only applied to private/local bills, not public bills like this one. Furthermore, even after the 1935 Constitution expanded this restriction, existing laws like Section 26 remained valid unless inconsistent with the new Constitution. As Section 26 was not inconsistent, it remained in force. The court therefore affirmed Valensoy's conviction.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    People vs. Valensoy

    Uploaded by

    Prince Cayabyab
    55 views2 pages
    Valeriano Valensoy y Masa was charged with concealing a bolo in violation of Section 26 of Act No. 1780. He argued this section was unconstitutional since it prohibited weapons other than firearms, which was not expressed in the title of the Act. The court denied this, finding that when the Act was passed in 1907, the constitutional restriction on titles only applied to private/local bills, not public bills like this one. Furthermore, even after the 1935 Constitution expanded this restriction, existing laws like Section 26 remained valid unless inconsistent with the new Constitution. As Section 26 was not inconsistent, it remained in force. The court therefore affirmed Valensoy's conviction.

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    Valeriano Valensoy y Masa was charged with concealing a bolo in violation of Section 26 of Act No. 1780. He argued this section was unconstitutional since it prohibited weapons other than firearms, which was not expressed in the title of the Act. The court denied this, finding that when the Act was passed in 1907, the constitutional restriction on titles only applied to private/local bills, not public bills like this one. Furthermore, even after the 1935 Constitution expanded this restriction, existing laws like Section 26 remained valid unless inconsistent with the new Constitution. As Section 26 was not inconsistent, it remained in force. The court therefore affirmed Valensoy's conviction.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    55 views2 pages

    People vs. Valensoy

    Uploaded by

    Prince Cayabyab
    Valeriano Valensoy y Masa was charged with concealing a bolo in violation of Section 26 of Act No. 1780. He argued this section was unconstitutional since it prohibited weapons other than firearms, which was not expressed in the title of the Act. The court denied this, finding that when the Act was passed in 1907, the constitutional restriction on titles only applied to private/local bills, not public bills like this one. Furthermore, even after the 1935 Constitution expanded this restriction, existing laws like Section 26 remained valid unless inconsistent with the new Constitution. As Section 26 was not inconsistent, it remained in force. The court therefore affirmed Valensoy's conviction.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    of 2

    G.R. No.

    L-9659             May 29, 1957

    THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee,


    vs.
    VALERIANO VALENSOY Y MASA, defendant-appellant.

    Rosauro L. Alvarez for appellant.


    Office of the Solicitor General Ambrosio Padilla and Assistant Solicitor General Jose G. Bautista for
    appellee.

    PADILLA, J.:

    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 local 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 provisions when enacted it
    remains valid thereafter regardless of any change or 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 or 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 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 enacted 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 Angelo, Labrador, Concepcion, Reyes, J.B.L., Endencia
    and Felix, JJ., concur.

    You might also like