THE UNITED STATES, PLAINTIFF AND APPELLEE, VS., JOSE TAMPARONG ET AL., DEFENDANTS AND APPELLANTS.

United States versus Tamparong

The Case

This is a criminal appeal in which the Government of the United States prosecuted Jose Tamparong and others for playing the game of chance called monte, in violation of Ordinance Number 35 of the municipality of Baguio. The defendants were convicted below and brought the case to the Supreme Court, raising two questions: whether the ordinance is valid, and whether the Supreme Court is required, on such an appeal, to examine the evidence to determine the guilt or innocence of the accused. The case matters because it fixes the narrow scope of the Supreme Court's appellate jurisdiction over convictions originating in justices of the peace, where the only question that may be reviewed is the validity or constitutionality of the statute or ordinance, not the sufficiency of the evidence.

Procedural History

The defendants were convicted by the justice of the peace of Baguio for playing monte in violation of Ordinance Number 35. They appealed to the Court of First Instance, where they were again tried and convicted upon the same charge. An appeal was allowed to the Supreme Court because the validity of Ordinance Number 35 was drawn in question during the trial in the court below. The case thus reached the Supreme Court by appeal from the judgment of the Court of First Instance.

Facts

The defendants were charged with having played the game of chance called monte, in violation of Ordinance Number 35. They were first tried and convicted by the justice of the peace of Baguio.

They appealed to the Court of First Instance, where the case was tried anew and they were again convicted upon the same charge. During the trial in the court below, the validity of Ordinance Number 35 was drawn in question, and on that ground an appeal was allowed to the Supreme Court.

Before the Supreme Court, the defendants argued that because they had questioned the legality of the ordinance in the lower court, the case came to the Supreme Court in all its details of law and fact, including the evidence taken at the trial on which the Court of First Instance founded its judgment of guilt. The Government contended, on the other hand, that the only questions of fact the Court may examine are those essential to determining the legality of the ordinance and the penalties provided therein, and no others.

Issues

• Whether or not Ordinance Number 35 is valid.
• Whether or not the Supreme Court is required under the law to examine the evidence for the purpose of determining the guilt or innocence of the defendants.

Applicable Provisions

Section 43 of General Orders Number 58, as originally enacted, provides:

From all final judgments of the Courts of First Instance or courts of similar jurisdiction, and in all cases in which the law now provides for appeals from said courts an appeal may be taken to the Supreme Court as hereinafter prescribed. Appeals shall also lie from the final judgments of justices of the peace in criminal cases to the courts of the next superior grade, and the decisions of the latter thereon shall be final and conclusive except in cases involving the validity or constitutionality of a statute, wherein appeal may be made to the Supreme Court.

This is the provision that defines the exceptional appeal to the Supreme Court and limits its scope to the validity or constitutionality of a statute.

Section 43, as amended by Section 34 of Act Number 1627, provides:

From all final judgments of the Court of First Instance or courts of similar jurisdiction, and in all cases in which the law now provides for appeals from said courts, an appeal may be taken to the Supreme Court as hereinafter prescribed. The convicted party may appeal from any final judgment of a justice of the peace in a criminal cause to the Court of First Instance by filing a notice of appeal with such justice within fifteen days after the entry of judgment. Upon such notice being so filed, the justice shall forward to the Court of First Instance all original papers and a transcript of all docket entries in the cause, and the provincial fiscal shall thereupon take charge of the cause in behalf of the prosecution. The judgment of the Court of First Instance in such appeals shall be final and conclusive, except in cases involving the validity or constitutionality of a statute or the constitutionality of a municipal or township ordinance.

The Court held that this amendment does not affect the issue, since the original section already covered ordinances within the word statute, and the amended section authorizes appeals in the same class of cases.

Ruling

On the first issue, the Court answered in the affirmative. It held Ordinance Number 35 valid, relying on its earlier decision in the case of United States versus Joson, which it found to be on all fours, so that further discussion of this branch was unnecessary.

On the second issue, the Court held that it is not required to examine the evidence touching the guilt or innocence of the defendants. The Court reasoned that Section 43 authorizes appeals to the Supreme Court from judgments of Courts of First Instance in cases originating in justices' courts only where the validity or constitutionality of a statute is drawn in question. The Court drew a plain and broad distinction between the illegality of an ordinance and the illegality of the proceedings or actions taken under it, and held that the section refers to facts bearing on the validity or constitutionality of the enactment itself, not to the correctness of the judgment of guilt. To hold otherwise, the Court said, would destroy the former practice, because it would suffice to raise some statutory question, whether material or not, to bring every case to the Supreme Court in its entirety. The Court also noted that the military governor had the power to limit or restrict the jurisdiction of the Supreme Court to statutory questions in cases of this character.

Doctrine

Where a criminal case originates in a justice of the peace court and is appealed to the Court of First Instance, the judgment of the Court of First Instance is final and conclusive, except in cases involving the validity or constitutionality of a statute or ordinance, in which case an appeal may be made to the Supreme Court. On such an appeal, the Supreme Court's review is confined to the question of the validity or constitutionality of the statute or ordinance; it cannot review the evidence nor pass upon the guilt or innocence of the accused. The distinction is between the illegality of the ordinance itself and the illegality of the proceedings taken under it; only the former is within the scope of the appeal.

Disposition

The Supreme Court upheld the validity of Ordinance Number 35 and held that it could not review the evidence on the guilt or innocence of the defendants, so the appeal on that ground was resolved against them.

Remember This

Memorize this line: on an appeal involving the validity or constitutionality of a statute or ordinance, the Supreme Court reviews only the validity of the enactment, never the evidence of guilt. Examiners use this case to test the scope of appellate jurisdiction over convictions from justice of the peace courts and the distinction between the legality of an ordinance and the legality of the proceedings under it.