People v. Que Bing
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: The defendants, Que Bing, et al., were convicted in the municipal court of the city of Manila for violating section 3 of Ordinance No. 2 of the city of Manila, which prohibits gambling. Procedural History: The defendants appealed their conviction to the Court of First Instance of Manila. In the Court of First Instance, they presented a demurrer to the complaint. The demurrer was sustained by the court, opining that the term "juego" (game) in Article 5 of Ordinance No. 2 should be of the same nature as "ruleta" or "faro," and since the complaint did not specify that the "panguigue de Chino" was such a game, the demurrer was sustained. The Petition: The Government appealed the order sustaining the demurrer to the Supreme Court.
Issue(s)
Whether the Government has the right to appeal from an order sustaining a demurrer to a complaint in a case originating from the municipal court of the city of Manila. Whether the Supreme Court has jurisdiction over the appeal.
Ruling
The appeal is dismissed with costs de oficio. The case is to be remanded to the court below for proper action after the expiration of ten days from the date of final judgment.
Ratio Decidendi
On the right to appeal: The Government has the right to appeal from an order sustaining a demurrer to a complaint, as established in United States v. Ballentine. This right is based on section 44 of General Orders, No. 58. On the jurisdiction of the Supreme Court: While section 44 of General Orders, No. 58 secures the right to appeal from a judgment for the defendant rendered on a demurrer, this section is limited and restricted by section 43 of the same general orders when dealing with cases commenced in the municipal court of the city of Manila. Section 43 provides that appeals from final judgments of courts of similar jurisdiction to the Court of First Instance lie to the Supreme Court, but decisions of the Court of First Instance on appeals from justices of the peace or municipal courts are generally final and conclusive, except in cases involving the validity or constitutionality of a statute. In this case, no question was raised as to the validity or constitutionality of the ordinance. Therefore, the Supreme Court has no jurisdiction over the appeal. The rulings in Trinidad v. Sweeney and Legaspi v. Sweeney are consistent with this principle.
Main Doctrine
The Supreme Court lacks jurisdiction to entertain an appeal from an order of the Court of First Instance sustaining a demurrer to a complaint in a case originating from a municipal court, unless the appeal involves the validity or constitutionality of a statute.