GR 3023; (January, 1907) (Digest)
G.R. No. 3023 The United States v. Pablo Trinidad
FACTS
Pablo Trinidad was convicted by the Municipal Court of Manila for violating Municipal Ordinance No. 28 (sodomy), receiving one month’s imprisonment and a ₱100 fine. On appeal to the Court of First Instance (CFI), the conviction was affirmed and the penalty heightened to six months’ hard labor and a $100 fine. Trinidad challenged the judgment on the ground that Ordinance No. 28 was invalid and that the CFI had erred by deciding without the assent of the two assessors who had dissented. The United States, as complainant‑appellee, moved for a mandamus to enforce the ordinance’s validity. The Supreme Court was asked to determine (1) the validity of Ordinance No. 28 and (2) whether the disagreement of the assessors or any procedural defect justified a further appeal beyond the CFI decision.
ISSUE
Whether Municipal Ordinance No. 28 of Manila is a valid exercise of the municipal corporation’s authority, and whether the Supreme Court may entertain a second appeal on the basis of assessors’ dissent or alleged procedural error when the matters raised pertain solely to the ordinance’s legality.
RULING
The Supreme Court held that Ordinance No. 28 was enacted within the powers granted to the Municipal Board by Act 183 (sections 16‑17) of the Philippine Commission and therefore is a valid municipal statute. No showing was made that the ordinance lacks a general character, violates sound principles, or conflicts with any superior law. Consequently, the ordinance stands.
The Court further clarified procedural jurisprudence: judgments of the CFI are final in criminal cases unless the appeal raises the constitutionality or legality of a statute. Disagreement of assessors with the CFI’s judgment does not constitute a ground for a second appeal, nor does it permit the Supreme Court to re‑examine the evidence. The Court’s review in such cases is confined to the question of statutory validity.
The appeal was dismissed; the appellant was ordered to pay costs, and the case was remanded to the lower court for execution of the affirmed judgment.