G.R. No. L-11050; April 30, 1958
CESAR VARGAS, ET AL., petitioners-appellants, vs. VICENTE S. TUASON, ET AL., respondents-appellees.

FACTS

On February 27, 1956, City Attorney Luis B. Uvero filed two informations for gambling in the Municipal Court of Naga City against Cesar Vargas and others (Criminal Cases Nos. 5248 and 5249). The informations alleged that on February 22, 1956, the accused, confederating together, willfully permitted and tolerated the playing of a game of chance known as “jackpot” using slot machines, wherein winning depended wholly or chiefly upon chance. Respondent Judge Vicente S. Tuason gave due course to the cases. The petitioners filed a motion to quash the informations on three grounds: (1) the City Attorney had no authority to file the information; (2) the information contained averments which, if true, would constitute a legal excuse or justification; and (3) the facts charged did not constitute an offense. They argued that under paragraph N, Section 15 of Republic Act No. 305 (the Charter of Naga City), the Municipal Board had authority to regulate slot machines and fix license fees, and that pursuant to this, Ordinance No. 72 (as amended by Ordinance No. 116) was passed, which fixed license fees, thereby allowing the operation of slot machines within the city. Thus, they contended there was no cause of action. The respondent Judge denied the motion to quash. The petitioners then filed a petition for certiorari with injunction in the Court of First Instance of Naga, seeking to annul the order denying the motion to quash, to prohibit the Judge from further hearing the cases, and to declare that the City Attorney had no authority to file the informations. The Court of First Instance, presided by Judge Perfecto Palacio, denied the petition. The petitioners appealed.

ISSUE

Whether the lower court erred in not holding that there is no law under which the petitioners may be successfully prosecuted, in light of the charter provision of Republic Act No. 305 and the city ordinance regulating slot machines, and that Article 195 of the Revised Penal Code cannot be applied.

RULING

The Supreme Court affirmed the decision of the Court of First Instance. The Court held that the assignment of error raised a matter of defense that should be presented during the trial in the Municipal Court and could not be entertained in the appeal. The Court found that the order of respondent Judge Tuason denying the motion to quash was issued with jurisdiction and without abuse of discretion, and thus could not be the subject of certiorari. The informations filed averred facts constituting an offense under Article 195 of the Revised Penal Code and contained no allegations constituting a legal excuse or justification. The City Attorney had authority under Section 24, paragraph (G) of Republic Act No. 305 to prosecute crimes committed within the city, and the Municipal Court had jurisdiction under the Judiciary Act of 1948 to try gambling cases. The Court clarified that the slot machine regulated by the city ordinance was for amusement purposes only, not for gambling, and the permission to operate such a machine did not authorize gambling, which is prohibited by the Revised Penal Code. The petitioners had the remedy of appeal after trial, making certiorari improper. The decision was affirmed, with costs against the petitioners.