People v. Sarmiento
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: Baltasar Sarmiento, a municipal councilor of Tagbilaran, was accused of being interested in two cockpits and a billiard hall within his municipality. Procedural History: Sarmiento was convicted in the Court of First Instance of Bohol for violating Section 28 of Act No. 82, as amended by Act No. 663. He appealed the decision. The Appeal: The appellant argued that Act No. 82, as amended, was rendered ineffective by the provisions of the Internal Revenue Law (Act No. 1189). Specifically, he contended that Act No. 1189 repealed the authority of municipalities to exact licenses for cockpits and billiard tables, thereby removing the basis for the prohibition against councilors' interest in such establishments, invoking the principle cessante ratione legis, cessat et ipsa lex.
Issue(s)
Whether the provisions of the Internal Revenue Law (Act No. 1189) render ineffective the prohibition against municipal councilors being interested in cockpits and billiard halls under Act No. 82, as amended by Act No. 663. Whether the municipality of Tagbilaran needed to have licensed cockpits for the prohibition to apply.
Ruling
The Supreme Court affirmed the conviction and the sentence of six months of prision imposed by the Court of First Instance, with costs.
Ratio Decidendi
On Issue 1: The Court held that the argument that Act No. 1189 rendered Act No. 82 ineffective was flawed. While Act No. 1189 did repeal provisions related to municipal licensing for revenue from cockpits and billiard tables, it did not extinguish the municipal council's power to prohibit and close such establishments. This power falls under police power regulation, not revenue generation, as provided by Section 40(j) of Act No. 82. Therefore, the reason for the law prohibiting councilors' interest in these places, which is to prevent conflicts in the exercise of police power, has not ceased. The councilman still possesses power over these establishments, and the prohibition remains applicable. On Issue 2: The Court clarified that it was unnecessary to prove that the municipal council of Tagbilaran had actually licensed cockpits for the prohibition to apply. Since cockpits were specifically mentioned in Act No. 663, they were not dependent on being covered by the broader phrase "or other permitted games and amusements." The prohibition was based on the council's regulatory power, not solely on its licensing authority for revenue, which had been affected by the Internal Revenue Law.
Main Doctrine
A municipal councilor remains prohibited from having an interest in businesses like cockpits and billiard halls, as municipal councils retain police power to regulate and prohibit such establishments, irrespective of whether the power to license them for revenue has been repealed by subsequent revenue laws. The rationale for the prohibition, rooted in preventing conflicts of interest in the exercise of police power, persists.