G.R. No. L-10255; August 6, 1915

FACTS:
On June 1, 1914, the acting prosecuting attorney of Iloilo filed a complaint in the Court of First Instance against Silvestre Pompeya for violating a municipal ordinance of Iloilo (Executive Order No. 1, series of 1914) based on Section 40(m) of the Municipal Code (Act No. 82, as amended by Act No. 1309). The complaint alleged that on or about March 20, 1914, Pompeya willfully and illegally failed to render service on patrol duty. He had been previously convicted and fined by the justice of the peace, from which judgment he appealed to the Court of First Instance. Upon arraignment, Pompeya demurred to the complaint, arguing that the facts charged did not constitute a crime and that the underlying ordinance was unconstitutional for being repugnant to the Philippine Bill, which guarantees the liberty of citizens. The trial court (Judge J.S. Powell) sustained the demurrer and dismissed the complaint. The prosecuting attorney appealed to the Supreme Court.

ISSUE:
1. Whether the municipal ordinance (and the law authorizing it, Act No. 1309) is constitutional, or whether it violates the liberty guarantees of the Philippine Bill.
2. Whether the complaint sufficiently states a cause of action under the law.

RULING:
1. On Constitutionality: The Supreme Court held that Act No. 1309, which amended the Municipal Code to authorize municipalities to require able-bodied male residents (ages 18-50) to assist in apprehending lawbreakers and act as patrols under specified conditions, is constitutional. The law is a valid exercise of the state’s police power. The Court reasoned that individuals in an organized society owe a duty to assist the government in maintaining peace and order, in return for the protection the government affords them. This duty has historical roots in systems like the feudal “hundreds” and the “hue and cry.” The law is not in derogation of the rights guaranteed by the Philippine Bill.

2. On Sufficiency of the Complaint: The Supreme Court held that the complaint was insufficient and properly dismissed on demurrer. While the law is valid, it applies only to a specific class of persons (able-bodied male residents between 18 and 50 years old) and only under specific conditions (e.g., when the municipality is infested with ladrones, as authorized by the provincial governor). The complaint failed to allege essential facts necessary to constitute the offense, such as:
That the defendant was an able-bodied male resident of the municipality.
That he was between 18 and 50 years of age.
That the conditions existed which justified the municipal president in requiring such service (i.e., that the province or municipality was infested with ladrones or outlaws and that the provincial governor had approved the ordinance).
A criminal complaint must state every fact necessary to constitute the offense and show that the accused belongs to the class liable under the law. The absence of these essential allegations rendered the complaint defective.

DISPOSITIVE PORTION: The judgment of the lower court sustaining the demurrer and dismissing the complaint was affirmed. Costs were adjudged de oficio*.