Case Digest (G.R. No. 45363)
Facts:
The People of the Philippines v. Chong Hong et al., G.R. No. 45363, June 13, 1938, the Supreme Court En Banc, Laurel, J., writing for the Court.
The prosecution, the People of the Philippines, appealed the dismissal of a criminal case against seven defendants, collectively styled Chong Hong et al., who had been convicted in the Justice of the Peace Court of Davao for violating Municipal Ordinance No. 394 (prohibiting the playing of "jueteng"). On appeal the Court of First Instance of Davao set aside the conviction and ordered the case dismissed on the ground that Ordinance No. 394 was null and void.
Ordinance No. 394 (approved February 12, 1936) made it an offense to take part in the game known as jueteng and classified offenders as "player," "collector," or "master or banker," prescribing graduated terms of imprisonment and fines for each class. The text of the ordinance was fully quoted in the record. The municipal council's authority to enact police regulations was invoked under the Revised Administrative Code, particularly section 2625 (hh) (power "To prevent and suppress ... gambling") and 2625 (jj) (general-welfare clause), and penalty limits were related to paragraph (ii) of the same section.
The Court of First Instance held Ordinance No. 394 void for conflict with national law, noting that jueteng was already prohibited by Article 195 of the Revised Penal Code and expressing concern that the ordinance failed to address recidivism as the Penal Code does. The People prosecuted an appeal to the Supreme Court challenging the dismissal. The Supreme Court reversed the Court of First Instance, fin...(Subscriber-Only)
Issues:
- Is Municipal Ordinance No. 394 of Davao a valid exercise of the municipal council's police power, or is it repugnant to national law?
- Did the Court of First Instance err in dismissing the prosecution when the ordina...(Subscriber-Only)
Ruling:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Ratio:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Doctrine:
- (Subscriber-Only)