People v. Pompeya
REITERATIONFacts
1. The Antecedents: The case originated from a complaint filed by the acting prosecuting attorney of Iloilo against Silvestre Pompeya for violating a municipal ordinance concerning patrol duty. The complaint alleged that on or about March 20, 1914, the accused willfully, illegally, and criminally failed to render service on patrol duty without justifiable motive, an act contrary to law. The justice of the peace of Iloilo had previously sentenced the accused to a fine and costs for this violation. 2. Procedural History: Following his conviction by the justice of the peace, the defendant appealed to the Court of First Instance. In the Court of First Instance, the defendant demurred to the complaint, arguing that the acts charged did not constitute a crime and that the municipal ordinance in question was unconstitutional as it violated the Organic Act guaranteeing citizen liberty. The Honorable J. S. Powell sustained the demurrer, dismissing the complaint and canceling the bond. The prosecuting attorney then appealed this dismissal to the Supreme Court. 3. The Petition: The appeal to the Supreme Court centers on the constitutionality of paragraph (m) of section 40 of the Municipal Code, as amended by Act No. 1309, which empowers municipal presidents to require able-bodied male residents to assist in apprehending lawbreakers and acting as patrols. The appellant argues that this ordinance is a valid exercise of the state's police power and does not violate the Organic Act. The appellee, however, contends that the ordinance is unconstitutional and that, even if constitutional, the complaint was insufficient as it failed to allege specific facts demonstrating the defendant's liability under the ordinance, such as his status as an able-bodied male resident within the specified age range and the existence of conditions justifying the call for service.
Issue(s)
Whether the municipal ordinance requiring able-bodied male residents to assist in patrol duty is constitutional. Whether the complaint sufficiently alleges facts to constitute a crime under the ordinance.
Ruling
The Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of the lower court, upholding the dismissal of the complaint. While the Court found the ordinance constitutional, it held that the complaint was insufficient for failing to allege specific facts required by the law.
Ratio Decidendi
On the constitutionality of the municipal ordinance: The Court held that Act No. 1309, which amended section 40(m) of the Municipal Code, empowering municipal councils to require able-bodied male residents to assist in apprehending lawbreakers and acting as patrols, falls within the police power of the state. The Court reasoned that individuals owe a duty to assist the government in maintaining peace and order, a concept rooted in historical obligations like the "hue and cry" and "posse comitatus." This power is inherent in every sovereign and is essential for the good of the state and its subjects, extending to the protection of lives, health, comfort, and property. The Court found no prohibition in the Organic Act against the Philippine Commission legislating on such matters, analogizing it to the broad legislative powers of state governments. Therefore, the ordinance was deemed constitutional and not in derogation of citizens' rights. On the sufficiency of the complaint: The Court found the complaint to be fatally defective. It reasoned that Act No. 1309 imposes specific conditions for requiring service: the person must be an able-bodied male resident between 18 and 55 years old, and certain conditions must exist justifying the call for service. The complaint failed to allege these essential facts. Specifically, it did not state that the defendant was a male citizen of the municipality, that he was able-bodied, that he was within the specified age range, or that conditions existed that warranted the municipal president calling upon him for service. Without these allegations, the complaint did not establish that the accused belonged to the class of persons punishable under the law, rendering it insufficient to constitute a cause of action under a demurrer.
Main Doctrine
A municipal ordinance requiring able-bodied male residents to assist in maintaining peace and order, enacted under the police power of the state, is constitutional and does not violate the liberty of citizens guaranteed by the Organic Act. However, a complaint charging a violation of such ordinance must allege facts showing that the accused belongs to the class of persons subject to the ordinance and that the conditions justifying the call for service existed.