People v. Chan-Cun-Chay
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: Manuel Chan-Cun-Chay was charged with violating Section 1 of Ordinance No. 2 of the City of Manila for establishing, sustaining, and maintaining a house with instruments and devices for gambling, which were used for gambling for money. Procedural History: The municipal court of Manila found the defendant guilty and sentenced him to six months imprisonment and a fine of $100. The defendant appealed to the Court of First Instance, which conducted a trial de novo. The Court of First Instance found him guilty again, sentencing him to three months imprisonment, a $100 fine, subsidiary imprisonment in case of insolvency, costs, and confiscation of gambling instruments and money. The defendant appealed this decision to the Supreme Court. The Appeal: The defendant argued that Ordinance No. 2 of the City of Manila was null and void because it conflicted with Article 343 of the Penal Code. He contended that the ordinance penalized the mere maintenance of gambling instruments, while the Penal Code punished the actual playing of games of chance. He also raised concerns about potential double jeopardy.
Issue(s)
Whether Ordinance No. 2 of the City of Manila is null and void for allegedly conflicting with Article 343 of the Penal Code. Whether the defendant is subject to double jeopardy by being prosecuted under both the municipal ordinance and the Penal Code for the same act.
Ruling
The Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of the Court of First Instance. The Court held that Ordinance No. 2 of the City of Manila is valid and does not conflict with Article 343 of the Penal Code, and that the defendant is not subject to double jeopardy.
Ratio Decidendi
On Issue 1: The Court found that Ordinance No. 2 of the City of Manila does not conflict with Article 343 of the Penal Code. Section 1 of the ordinance punishes any person who sets up, keeps, or maintains any table or other instrument or device for the purpose of gaming or gambling, or with which money or anything of value shall be played for. This offense is distinct from that penalized by Article 343 of the Penal Code, which specifically punishes bankers and proprietors of houses where games of chance, stakes, or hazard are played, and also punishes the players. The ordinance punishes the maintenance of a house containing gambling paraphernalia, irrespective of whether games were actually played, whereas the Penal Code requires that games of chance be actually played. Therefore, the ordinance penalizes a different offense. Even if the offenses were the same, the ordinance would not be null because the City of Manila, under its Charter (Act No. 183, Sections 16 and 17(n)), was expressly granted the authority to suppress gaming houses and gambling, and to fix penalties for violations, provided such penalties do not exceed the limits set by the Charter (not exceeding $100 fine or six months imprisonment). On Issue 2: The Court held that even if the offenses were the same, the defendant would not be subject to double jeopardy. The principle against double jeopardy applies when the same act constitutes an offense against a single sovereign. However, when the same act violates the laws of two distinct political entities, each exercising sovereign rights over the same territory, the offender may be punished by each entity. In this case, the act constituted an offense against the City of Manila under its ordinance and potentially against the State under the Penal Code. The Court cited precedents establishing that an act can be an offense against both a state and the United States, or against civil and military law, and can be punished by each. The ordinance was considered a mere police regulation for the peace and good order of the city, while the Penal Code had a more enlarged object concerning the dignity of the State. Therefore, punishment by the city under its ordinance does not preclude punishment by the State, nor does it bar the prosecution by the city on the grounds of second jeopardy.
Main Doctrine
The Supreme Court affirmed the validity of Ordinance No. 2 of the City of Manila, holding that it did not conflict with Article 343 of the Penal Code because it penalized a different offense – the maintenance of instruments for gambling – rather than the actual playing of games of chance. Furthermore, the Court reiterated the principle that an act violating the laws of two distinct political entities, such as a city and the State, may be punished by each without constituting double jeopardy, emphasizing that the ordinance was enacted under the city's police power for local peace and order, distinct from the State's broader interest.