G.R. No. L-7019; October 29, 1913
THE UNITED STATES, plaintiff-appellee, vs. PAZ JOSON, ET AL., defendants-appellants.

FACTS:
On October 26, 1910, in Malabon, Rizal, Paz Joson and others were charged with willfully and unlawfully playing the prohibited game of jueteng. Paz Joson was accused as the mistress of the house, Isidoro Roque as the banker, and the rest as collectors. They were caught in the act, and paraphernalia for jueteng (a tambiolo, tickets, money, etc.) were seized. The complaint was based on a violation of Municipal Ordinance No. 1, Series of 1910, of Malabon. Several defendants pleaded guilty before the justice of the peace, while others pleaded not guilty. After trial, the justice of the peace convicted Paz Joson, Isidoro Roque, and others, imposing fines. The defendants appealed to the Court of First Instance, where a demurrer challenging the complaint was overruled. Upon rearraignment, most pleaded guilty again, except Isidoro Roque. The Court of First Instance affirmed the conviction. On appeal to the Supreme Court, the appellants contended that the municipal ordinance under which they were convicted was invalid and unconstitutional, as it conflicted with the general law on gambling, specifically Act No. 1757 (the Gambling Law).

ISSUE:
Whether Municipal Ordinance No. 1, Series of 1910, of Malabon, which prohibits and penalizes jueteng, is valid and constitutional despite the existence of Act No. 1757 , a general law enacted by the Philippine Commission that also prohibits and penalizes jueteng.

RULING:
The Supreme Court upheld the validity of the municipal ordinance and affirmed the convictions. The Court ruled that:
1. The charter of the municipality of Malabon ( Act No. 82 ) expressly granted the municipal council the authority to enact ordinances for the suppression of gambling and to preserve public morals and order. This grant of power fully authorized the adoption of Ordinance No. 1.
2. The subsequent enactment of the general law ( Act No. 1757 ) by the central government did not impliedly repeal the municipality’s authority to enact its own ordinance on the same subject. Act No. 1757 did not contain any express repeal of such municipal powers, nor did its provisions imply that municipalities were deprived of their charter authority to regulate gambling.
3. There is no constitutional or statutory prohibition against the legislative department authorizing municipalities to adopt ordinances that penalize acts which are also offenses under general law, provided such ordinances are within the scope of the municipal charter and aim to preserve local peace, order, and morals.
4. The ordinance and the general law can coexist. An act can constitute an offense against both the municipality and the state, and a person may be prosecuted under either, but not twice for the same offense (following the principle against double jeopardy as established in U.S. vs. Grafton).

Therefore, the appeal was dismissed, and the lower court’s sentence was ordered executed.