G.R. No. 10363; September 29, 1915
THE UNITED STATES, plaintiff-appellee, vs. PASCUAL PACIS, ET AL., defendants-appellants.

FACTS:
The defendants-appellants, Pascual Pacis et al., were convicted by the Court of First Instance of the Fourth Judicial District for violating a gambling ordinance of the City of Baguio. The conviction was rendered on appeal from the justice of the peace court of Baguio. The appellants challenged the validity of the ordinance, arguing that the municipal council of Baguio lacked the power to enact it under its charter (Act No. 1963). The trial judge upheld the ordinance, reasoning that the power was derived from subsection (e) of section 32 of the Baguio Incorporation Act, which preserved laws applicable to Baguio prior to its incorporation. Specifically, the judge referenced section 29 of Act No. 1397 (The Township Government Act), which expressly authorized township councils in Benguet to prohibit gambling. However, the Supreme Court found this reasoning flawed, as Act No. 1397 applied only to townships organized under it, not to Baguio, which was incorporated under a separate charter.

ISSUE:
Whether the municipal council of Baguio had the authority to enact an ordinance prohibiting and penalizing gambling under its charter, particularly through the “general welfare clause,” despite the existence of a general statute (Act No. 1757) penalizing gambling.

RULING:
The Supreme Court upheld the validity of the ordinance and affirmed the conviction. The Court ruled that the municipal council of Baguio derived its authority from subsection (ll) of section 8 of the Baguio Incorporation Act (as amended by Act No. 2106), known as the “general welfare clause.” This clause grants the council broad police powers to enact ordinances for the health, safety, morals, peace, order, comfort, and convenience of the city and its inhabitants. The Court held that the ordinance was not repugnant to or inconsistent with the general gambling statute (Act No. 1757). Citing precedents such as United States vs. Joson, the Court emphasized that the same act could constitute an offense against both the state and a municipality, and both could impose penalties without conflict. The Court noted that urban communities like Baguio might require stricter measures to address local evils like gambling, justifying municipal action under general police powers. The appeal was dismissed, and costs were imposed on the appellants.