Facts:

The case involves Isidoro Espiritusanto as the defendant and the United States as the plaintiff. The events leading to this case began on November 16, 1910, in Malabon, Rizal, where Espiritusanto was found engaged in collecting wagers for the gambling game known as jueteng. The local authorities seized tickets necessary for conducting the game from his possession. Following these events, the justice of the peace court of Malabon rendered a judgment against him, imposing a fine of P50 and subsidiary imprisonment in case of insolvency. Espiritusanto appealed this judgment, leading to the provincial fiscal of Rizal filing an information in the Court of First Instance on June 24, 1911, charging him with a violation of municipal ordinance No. 1, series of 1910, which strictly prohibited the game of jueteng within the municipality. The ordinance, enacted by the municipal council of Malabon, outlined penalties for violations, including the collection of wagers and the operation of ...

Facts:

1. Procedural Background:

   • The defendant, Isidoro Espiritusanto, was convicted by the justice of the peace court of Malabon for violating Municipal Ordinance No. 1, series of 1910, which prohibited the game of jueteng.
   • He was sentenced to pay a fine of P50, with subsidiary imprisonment in case of insolvency, and to pay the costs.
   • The provincial fiscal of Rizal filed an information in the Court of First Instance, charging the defendant with collecting wagers for jueteng on November 16, 1910.
   • The Court of First Instance affirmed the judgment of conviction on September 25, 1911.

2. Nature of the Offense:

   • The defendant was found to be engaged in collecting wagers for jueteng, a gambling game prohibited by law.
   • Tickets necessary for conducting jueteng were seized in his possession.

3. Ordinance in Question:

   • Municipal Ordinance No. 1, series of 1910, was enacted by the municipal council of Malabon on January 5, 1910, and amended on March 27 and June 14, 1910.
   • The ordinance strictly prohibited jueteng within the municipality and prescribed penalties for violations.
   • It classified collectors, bankers, and maintainers of jueteng games as violators, aligning with the provisions of Act No. 1757.

4. Defendant’s Argument:

   • The defendant appealed, arguing that the ordinance was unconstitutional because the municipal council exceeded its powers under the Municipal Code.
   • He contended that the ordinance was contrary to subsection (u) of section 39 of the Municipal Code, which only authorized the council to "provide against the evils of gambling, gambling houses, and disorderly houses of whatsoever sort."

Issue:

• (Unlock)

Ruling:

• (Unlock)

Ratio:

1. Authority of Municipal Councils:

   • The municipal council of Malabon did not exceed its authority in enacting the ordinance. Subsection (u) of section 39 of the Municipal Code granted the council the power to "provide against the evils of gambling," which includes prohibiting specific gambling games like jueteng.
   • The ordinance aligns with Act No. 1757, which strictly prohibits games of chance such as jueteng.

2. Constitutionality of the Ordinance:

   • The ordinance is a local regulation and not a general law. Therefore, it is not required to comply with the constitutional provision that general laws must express their subject in their title.
   • The Act of Congress of July 1, 1902, applies only to general laws and not to municipal ordinances, which are merely rules for the fulfillment of laws.

3. Social and Moral Evils of Jueteng:

   • The prohibition of jueteng is justified by the social and moral evils it produces. The ordinance is a valid exercise of the municipal council’s authority to suppress such evils.