CHAN LIN AND LEE LION, PETITIONERS, VS. M. VIVENCIO DEL ROSARIO AND J. MCMICKING, RESPONDENTS.

This is a petition for a writ of certiorari directed to the Court of First
Instance of the city of Manila for a review of a judgment of conviction in a
criminal action entered by that court against the petitioners herein.

It appears that the petitioners were arrested and convicted in the municipal
court of the city of Manila for having engaged in a gambling game within the
police jurisdiction of the city of Manila. They appealed to the Court of First
Instance of the city of Manila. The case having been properly certified to the
appellate court a demurrer was filed to the information upon the same grounds
presented as the basis of the demurrer in the municipal court, namely, that the
municipal court had no jurisdiction of the crime and that, as a consequence, the
Court of First Instance had no jurisdiction thereof on appeal. The demurrer was
overruled and the case tried, resulting in a conviction and a fine of P100
against each of the petitioners. An appeal was thereupon taken to the Supreme
Court, which appeal was denied by the Court of First Instance.

The basis of the petition in this case is, as already indicated, the alleged
lack of jurisdiction of the municipal court of the city of Manila, it being
claimed that, the information having been filed under Act No. 1757, known as the
Gambling Law, and that Act permitting a punishment of more than six months
imprisonment and P200 fine, the municipal court had no jurisdiction thereof and
all proceedings in that court and subsequent thereto have neither force nor
effect.

The argument in support of this contention is based on the Act of Congress of
July 1, 1902, which confirms the jurisdiction of certain courts of the
Philippine Islands as then exercised; and that the jurisdiction of the municipal
court of the city of Manila at the time of the passage of the Act of Congress
referred to being limited as aforesaid, such jurisdiction was confirmed by that
Act as thus limited and could not thereafter be enlarged.

This argument overlooks an important point; and that is, that at the time
said Act of Congress was passed, the municipal court of the city of Manila was
enjoying the jurisdiction conferred by Act No. 267 and not that conferred by Act
136 upon which the petitioners rely as showing the jurisdiction of that court at
that time. Act No. 267 gives the municipal court of the city of Manila
concurrent jurisdiction with the Court of First Instance over all violations of
the Gambling Law committed within its territorial limits.

This being the case the contention of the petitioners is without grounds to
sustain it.

The petition is dismissed, with costs. So ordered.

Torres, Carson, Trent, and Araullo, JJ., concur.