People v. Pacis
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: Appellants were convicted of violating a gambling ordinance of the city of Baguio. The case originated from the court of the justice of the peace and was appealed to the Court of First Instance. Procedural History: The Court of First Instance rendered a judgment convicting the appellants. The case is now on appeal to the Supreme Court. The Petition: The appellants contend that the municipal council of Baguio lacked the power to enact the gambling ordinance, as their authority must be derived from their charter (Act No. 1963).
Issue(s)
Whether the municipal council of Baguio has the power to enact an ordinance prohibiting and penalizing gambling. Whether an ordinance prohibiting and penalizing gambling is valid despite the existence of a general statute (Act No. 1757) that also prohibits and penalizes gambling.
Ruling
The Supreme Court ruled that the municipal council of Baguio has the power to enact the ordinance prohibiting and penalizing gambling. The appeal was dismissed.
Ratio Decidendi
On the power of the municipal council to enact the ordinance: The Court found that the power of the municipal council of Baguio to enact the ordinance is derived from the "general welfare provisions" of the Baguio Incorporation Act (No. 1963), specifically subsection (c) of section 8, as amended. This provision grants extensive police powers to the city council to make necessary ordinances for the health, safety, prosperity, morals, peace, good order, comfort, and convenience of the city and its inhabitants. While the Township Government Act (No. 1397) expressly granted power to prohibit gambling to township councils, the Baguio Incorporation Act did not contain such an express grant. However, the general welfare clause is broad enough to encompass the enactment of ordinances prohibiting and penalizing gambling, as it falls within the scope of promoting good order and general welfare. On the validity of the ordinance despite a general statute: The Court held that an ordinance enacted under a general grant of police powers, prohibiting and penalizing an act as an offense against the peace and good order of the municipality, is not necessarily inconsistent with or repugnant to a general statute prohibiting and penalizing the same act as an offense against the state. Drawing from established jurisprudence, the Court affirmed that an act may constitute an offense against both the state and the municipality, and both may impose penalties. The existence of a state law does not preclude a municipality from enacting its own ordinance with penalties, provided the ordinance is within the municipality's police powers and not repugnant to the general law. The ordinance's purpose of suppressing gambling in Baguio is in harmony with the general statute, and there is nothing inherently repugnant in penalizing gambling as an offense against the city's peace and good order, even if it is also an offense against the state.
Main Doctrine
An ordinance enacted under a general grant of police powers, prohibiting and penalizing the commission of an offense as an offense against the peace and good order of the municipality, is not necessarily inconsistent with, or repugnant to, a general statute prohibiting and penalizing the commission of the act as an offense against the state, provided the subject matter falls within the purview of the general police powers conferred under the 'general welfare clause' of its charter.