People v. Ayoso
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: Accused-appellants Mariano Ayoso, et al. were charged with illegal cockfighting under Article 199 of the Revised Penal Code for allegedly engaging in "Tari-Tari" with a P25 bet on July 21, 1960, at the cockpit of Tan Sim in Bogo, Cebu, a licensed cockpit operating on a Thursday, which was allegedly not permitted by law. Procedural History: The accused filed a motion to quash, asserting that cockfighting was authorized on Thursdays by Municipal Ordinance No. 18, Series of 1960. The Municipal Court sustained the motion and dismissed the complaint. The prosecution appealed to the Court of First Instance (CFI) of Cebu. The Petition: The CFI declared Ordinance No. 18, Series of 1960, as ultra vires and void, set aside the dismissal order, and remanded the case to the Municipal Court for trial on the merits. The accused-appellants appealed this decision to the Supreme Court, assigning errors regarding the CFI's appellate jurisdiction and its declaration of the ordinance as void.
Issue(s)
Whether the Court of First Instance has appellate jurisdiction over the order of dismissal issued by the Municipal Court. Whether Municipal Ordinance No. 18, Series of 1960, of Bogo, Cebu, is ultra vires and void.
Ruling
The Supreme Court affirmed the decision of the Court of First Instance of Cebu, declaring Municipal Ordinance No. 18, Series of 1960, as ultra vires and void, and ordering the remand of the case to the Municipal Court for trial on the merits. Costs were against the appellants.
Ratio Decidendi
On the issue of appellate jurisdiction: The Court held that the Court of First Instance correctly exercised appellate jurisdiction. Rule 122, Section 2 of the New Rules of Court allows either party to appeal from a final judgment or ruling or an order made after judgment affecting substantial rights, provided the prosecution's appeal does not place the defendant in double jeopardy. In this case, the appeal was from an order of dismissal before arraignment, thus not involving conviction and not raising double jeopardy concerns. The CFI's review was limited to the validity of the dismissal, not the guilt or innocence of the accused, which is a proper subject for appellate review. On the validity of Municipal Ordinance No. 18, Series of 1960: The Court ruled that the ordinance is ultra vires and void. Citing Quimsing Lachica, et al., the Court reiterated that Republic Act No. 938, as amended, does not grant local governments blanket authority to permit cockfighting at any time. Such an interpretation would amount to a repeal of Sections 2285 and 2286 of the Revised Administrative Code, and grants of power to local governments must be strictly construed in favor of the national government. The Court emphasized that while local governments are empowered to regulate "cockpits," this authority does not necessarily extend to regulating "cockfighting" itself, particularly the days on which it may be held, beyond ensuring it occurs in a licensed cockpit. The failure of a subsequent bill (H.B. No. 7504) to expressly grant municipal councils the power to authorize cockfighting on any day of the week further supports the interpretation that such power is not currently granted.
Main Doctrine
A municipal ordinance authorizing cockfighting on a day not permitted by law is ultra vires and void. The authority of local governments to regulate cockpits does not necessarily connote the power to regulate cockfighting itself, except as it must take place in a duly licensed cockpit.