People v. Chong
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: Seven defendants were convicted in the justice of the peace court of Davao for violation of Municipal Ordinance No. 394, which prohibited the playing of 'jueteng'. Procedural History: On appeal, the Court of First Instance of Davao dismissed the case, declaring Municipal Ordinance No. 394 null and void. The Petition: The prosecution appealed the dismissal order of the Court of First Instance, challenging the declaration of nullity of the ordinance.
Issue(s)
Whether Municipal Ordinance No. 394 of Davao is null and void. Whether the municipal council of Davao is empowered to enact an ordinance prohibiting and penalizing the game of 'jueteng'. Whether the ordinance conflicts with Article 195 of the Revised Penal Code.
Ruling
The Supreme Court reversed the order of dismissal, holding that Municipal Ordinance No. 394 is valid and remanding the case to the court of origin for trial on the merits.
Ratio Decidendi
On Whether Municipal Ordinance No. 394 of Davao is null and void: The Supreme Court held that the ordinance is valid. The municipal council of Davao is empowered by law, specifically section 2625 (hh) and (jj) of the Revised Administrative Code, to enact ordinances preventing and suppressing gambling and to make all necessary police ordinances for the general welfare. The suppression of gambling falls within the police power of a municipal corporation, and ordinances reasonably aimed at this purpose are valid. On Whether the municipal council of Davao is empowered to enact an ordinance prohibiting and penalizing the game of 'jueteng': The Court affirmed that the municipal council possesses the authority to enact such an ordinance. Section 2625 (hh) of the Revised Administrative Code expressly authorizes municipal councils to prevent and suppress gambling. Furthermore, the general-welfare clause also supports this power. The ordinance in question was enacted under this authority. On Whether the ordinance conflicts with Article 195 of the Revised Penal Code: The Supreme Court ruled that the ordinance does not conflict with Article 195 of the Revised Penal Code, even though 'jueteng' is already prohibited by the latter. The fact that an act is penalized by a general law does not preclude a municipal ordinance from covering the same matter. Both jurisdictions can punish the act without infringing constitutional principles. The ordinance distinguishes between 'player', 'collector', and 'master or banker', prescribing different penalties, while the Revised Penal Code prescribes a common penalty. This distinction, made necessary by local conditions, and the imposition of additional penalties, do not constitute a conflict, as an ordinance may enlarge upon a statute without creating inconsistency, unless the statute limits requirements to its own prescription. The ordinance's silence on recidivism, which the general law addresses more severely, also does not indicate inconsistency.
Main Doctrine
A municipal ordinance prohibiting and penalizing the game of 'jueteng' is valid, even if the same act is already penalized by a general law, as the municipality is empowered by police power to suppress gambling, and additional regulations or penalties imposed by an ordinance do not necessarily create a conflict with the state law.