G.R. No. 252986 - Sunway Builders vs. Commission on Audit

Pablo Trinidad was convicted in the municipal court of Manila for violating a municipal ordinance on sodomy.
The conviction resulted in a sentence of one month’s imprisonment and a fine of P100 (Philippine currency).

Pablo Trinidad appealed the decision to the Court of First Instance, where his conviction was affirmed.
On appeal, the Court of First Instance increased the penalty to six months’ imprisonment at hard labor and imposed a fine of $100 (United States currency), including the costs of the proceedings.
The appeal in the Court of First Instance focused on challenging the validity of Municipal Ordinance No. 28.

A prior decision of this Court clarified that, as a general rule, judgments from the Courts of First Instance in criminal cases are final when the appeal does not involve the constitutionality or legality of a statute.
When an appeal involves a constitutional or statutory validity issue, the matter may be brought before the Supreme Court.
The decision emphasized that when the appeal is limited to the validity of a statute, the Supreme Court would not re-examine evidence or decide the underlying factual questions.

A motion for a new trial was filed on the ground that the trial court had rendered a decision without consulting the two assessors who were present, whose dissenting opinion was not considered, thereby allegedly denying due process.
This motion was overruled by the Court, with the understanding that a second appeal based on assessor disagreement is only permissible when the appeal directly involves the constitutionality or validity of an act or statute.

Ordinance No. 28 was enacted by the Municipal Board of Manila under the powers conferred by Act No. 183, sections 16 and 17, provided by the legislative branch of the Government.
The ordinance is a municipal statute designed as a rule of conduct applicable to all citizens of Manila and had been enforced regularly since its effectivity on April 2, 1902.
The case primarily questioned the legality and validity of Ordinance No. 28, not the evidence relating to the alleged sodomy.

Whether the municipal ordinance, Ordinance No. 28, enacted by the Municipal Board of Manila, is valid and within the powers granted under Act No. 183.

Does the ordinance conflict with any higher law or statute in force?
Is the ordinance of a general character, uniformly applicable to all citizens, and based on sound principles?

Whether the disagreement of the assessors during the trial constitutes a ground for a second appeal on due process grounds.

Can the noted dissenting opinion of the assessors justify re-examining the evidence and rendering a new trial?
Does the precedent on appellate review permit a second appeal in cases not involving constitutional or statutory validity issues?