THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE, VS. MARIANO AYOSO, TEODORICO VALENZUELA, ALFONSO DESOYO AND FELIPE DE LA CRUZ, ACCUSED-APPELLANTS.

Ayoso versus People of the Philippines

The Case

This is Ayoso versus People of the Philippines, a criminal appeal decided in April 1967. Four men were charged with illegal cockfighting in Bogo, Cebu, after they staged a fight on a Thursday at a licensed cockpit, relying on a municipal ordinance that allowed cockfighting on Thursdays. The case matters for two reasons: it settles who may appeal from an order of a municipal court dismissing a criminal complaint before arraignment, and it confirms that a municipal council cannot, by ordinance, authorize cockfighting on days not permitted by law.

Procedural History

The Chief of Police of Bogo filed a complaint for illegal cockfighting before the Municipal Court of Bogo. Before arraignment, the accused moved to quash, arguing that the facts alleged did not constitute an offense because Ordinance Number 18, Series of 1960, of the Municipality of Bogo authorized cockfighting on Thursdays. The municipal court sustained the motion and dismissed the complaint. The prosecution appealed to the Court of First Instance of Cebu. That court rendered judgment declaring the ordinance ultra vires and void, declaring the dismissal improper and without legal basis, ordering the remand of the records, and directing the municipal court to try the case on the merits. The accused then appealed to the Supreme Court.

Facts

On July 21, 1960, at about two forty-five in the afternoon, at the cockpit of Tan Sim in the Poblacion of Bogo, Cebu, the four accused indulged in a cockfight commonly known as tara-tari, with twenty-five pesos used as a bet. The day was a Thursday, which was not permitted by law, although the place was a licensed cockpit.

The Chief of Police charged them with illegal cockfighting, citing Article 199 of the Revised Penal Code. The accused moved to quash, invoking Ordinance Number 18, Series of 1960, which the Municipal Council of Bogo had enacted and approved, and which authorized cockfighting in Bogo on Thursdays. The municipal court agreed and dismissed the complaint.

On the prosecution's appeal, the Court of First Instance of Cebu held the ordinance ultra vires and void, set aside the dismissal, and directed the municipal court to proceed to trial on the merits. Hence this appeal.

Issues

• Whether or not the Court of First Instance of Cebu had appellate jurisdiction over the order of the municipal court dismissing the complaint, given that only the convicted party may appeal from a judgment of a municipal court.
• Whether or not Ordinance Number 18, Series of 1960, of the Municipality of Bogo, authorizing cockfighting on Thursdays, is ultra vires and therefore null and void.

Applicable Provisions

Section 2 of Rule 122 of the New Rules of Court provides:

Who may appeal. - The People of the Philippines cannot appeal if the defendant would be placed thereby in double jeopardy. In all other cases, either party may appeal from a final judgment or ruling or from an order made after judgment affecting the substantial rights of the appellant.

This provision supplies the general rule on who may appeal in criminal cases, and the Court uses it to reject the claim that only a convicted party may appeal from a municipal court order.

Ruling

On the first issue, the Court held that the Court of First Instance properly took cognizance of the appeal. What was appealed was the order dismissing the complaint upon the accused's motion to quash before arraignment. The guilt or innocence of the accused was never in issue, so there could be no question of conviction at that stage, and the rule limiting appeals to the convicted party did not apply. The Court of First Instance limited itself to determining the validity of the dismissal. Under Section 2 of Rule 122, the People may appeal whenever the defendant would not be placed in double jeopardy, and in all other cases either party may appeal. The Court agreed with the observation of the Court of First Instance that this principle applies in all criminal cases irrespective of the court where they are pending, and that the contrary view would produce the absurd situation that errors of municipal courts adverse to the State would be without remedy while similar errors of Courts of First Instance would be reviewable.

On the second issue, the Court held the ordinance void. It relied on its earlier ruling in Quimsing versus Lachica, which held that Republic Act Number 938, as amended, does not give local governments blanket authority to permit cockfighting at any time. Grants of power to local governments are construed strictly, and doubts are resolved in favor of the national government. Cockpits and cockfighting are regulated separately by law: municipal councils may regulate cockpits, but the authority over cockfighting is found in the Revised Administrative Code, and Article 199 of the Revised Penal Code punishes illegal cockfighting, including participation on a day other than those permitted by law. The Court also noted that a bill granting municipal councils the power to authorize cockfighting on any day of the week failed of enactment, which inferentially confirmed that no such authority presently exists.

Doctrine

First, the People of the Philippines may appeal from an order of a municipal court dismissing a criminal complaint before arraignment, because the accused is not thereby placed in double jeopardy; the restriction that only the convicted party may appeal applies to judgments of conviction, not to interlocutory orders of dismissal.

Second, a municipal ordinance authorizing cockfighting on a day not permitted by law is ultra vires and void. The power to regulate cockpits does not include the power to regulate the days of cockfighting, which remains governed by the Revised Administrative Code and Article 199 of the Revised Penal Code.

Disposition

The Supreme Court affirmed the decision of the Court of First Instance of Cebu, with costs against the appellants, and the case was remanded for trial on the merits.

Remember This

The line to memorize: the People may appeal from a dismissal before arraignment because there is no double jeopardy, and a municipal ordinance cannot authorize cockfighting on a day not permitted by law. Examiners use this case on the appeal of the prosecution from orders of dismissal and on the strict construction of local government powers over cockfighting.