Facts:

The case involves the People of the Philippines as the plaintiff and appellant against Chong Hong and six other defendants, who were convicted in the Justice of the Peace Court of Davao for violating Ordinance No. 394 of the municipality. This ordinance, enacted on February 12, 1936, prohibits the playing of "jueteng," a form of illegal gambling. The ordinance outlines specific penalties for different roles in the game: players, collectors, masters, and bankers, each facing varying degrees of imprisonment and fines. Following their conviction, the defendants appealed to the Court of First Instance of Davao, which dismissed the case, declaring the ordinance null and void. The prosecution then appealed this dismissal, challenging the lower court's ruling.

Issue:

1. Is Ordinance No. 394 of the municipali...

Facts:

1. Conviction in Justice of the Peace Court: The seven defendants were convicted in the justice of the peace court of Davao for violating Ordinance No. 394, which prohibited the playing of "jueteng."
2. Appeal to Court of First Instance: On appeal, the Court of First Instance of Davao dismissed the case, ruling that Ordinance No. 394 was null and void.
3. Prosecution's Appeal: The prosecution appealed the dismissal, challenging the lower court's decision.
4. Ordinance No. 394: The ordinance prohibited participation in jueteng and imposed varying penalties based on the role of the offender (player, collector, or master/banker).
5. Legal Authority: The municipal council of Davao derived its authority to enact the ordinance from Section 2625(hh) and (jj) of the Revised Administrative Code, which empowered municipalities to prevent and suppress gambling and enforce police ordinances.
6. Conflict with General Law: The lower court emphasized that jueteng was already prohibited and penalized under Article 195 of the Revised Penal Code, suggesting a conflict between the ordinance and the general law.

Issue:

• (Unlock)

Ruling:

• (Unlock)

Ratio:

1. Authority to Enact Ordinance: The municipal council of Davao had the authority to enact Ordinance No. 394 under Section 2625(hh) and (jj) of the Revised Administrative Code, which grants municipalities the power to prevent and suppress gambling and enforce police ordinances.
2. No Conflict with General Law: The fact that jueteng is already prohibited and penalized under Article 195 of the Revised Penal Code does not invalidate the ordinance. The same act can constitute an offense against both the state and a political subdivision, and both jurisdictions may punish the act without infringing constitutional principles.
3. Additional Regulations Permissible: The ordinance's distinction between players, collectors, and masters/bankers, as well as its imposition of varying penalties, does not create a conflict with the general law. Additional regulations or penalties imposed by an ordinance do not conflict with the general law unless the statute explicitly limits such requirements.
4. Silence on Recidivism: The ordinance's silence on recidivism, which is addressed more severely in the general law, does not indicate inconsistency. Inconsistency arises only if the ordinance directly contradicts the general law.
5. Constitutional Bar to Double Prosecution: Under Article III, Section 1(20) of the Constitution, conviction or acquittal under either the ordinance or the general law bars another prosecution for the same act.