G.R. No. L-18762; April 27, 1967
THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, vs. MARIANO AYOSO, TEODORICO VALENZUELA, ALFONSO DESOYO and FELIPE DE LA CRUZ, accused-appellants.

FACTS

On July 21, 1960, a complaint was filed before the Municipal Court of Bogo, Cebu, accusing Mariano Ayoso, Teodorico Valenzuela, Alfonso Desoyo, and Felipe de la Cruz of Illegal Cockfighting. The complaint alleged that on the afternoon of July 21, 1960 (a Thursday), at the licensed cockpit in Bogo, the accused willfully indulged in illegal cockfighting (“Tari-Tari”) with a money bet of P25, on a day not permitted by law. The accused filed a motion to quash the complaint, arguing that the facts did not constitute an offense because Municipal Ordinance No. 18, Series of 1960, enacted by the Municipal Council of Bogo, authorized cockfighting on Thursdays. The Municipal Court sustained the motion and dismissed the complaint on September 9, 1960. The prosecution appealed this order of dismissal to the Court of First Instance (CFI) of Cebu. The CFI rendered a judgment: (1) declaring Ordinance No. 18 null and void as ultra vires; (2) declaring the municipal court’s order of dismissal improper; (3) ordering the remand of the case records to the municipal court; and (4) directing the municipal court to proceed with the trial on the merits. The accused appealed this CFI decision.

ISSUE

1. Whether the Court of First Instance of Cebu had appellate jurisdiction to review the municipal court’s order of dismissal upon the prosecution’s appeal.
2. Whether Municipal Ordinance No. 18, Series of 1960, of Bogo, Cebu, which authorized cockfighting on Thursdays, is valid.

RULING

1. On Jurisdiction: The Court of First Instance correctly exercised appellate jurisdiction. The appeal by the prosecution was from an order of dismissal upon a motion to quash before arraignment, not from a judgment of conviction. The guilt or innocence of the accused was not in issue. Rule 122, Section 2 of the Rules of Court provides that the People may appeal in all cases except when the defendant would be placed in double jeopardy. This principle applies uniformly to all courts, including municipal courts. The CFI’s review was limited to the validity of the dismissal order and did not place the accused in double jeopardy.
2. On the Validity of the Ordinance: Municipal Ordinance No. 18 is ultra vires and null and void. The Supreme Court, citing its precedent in Quimsing Lachica, et al. v. Chief of Police, et al. (G.R. No. L-14633, May 30, 1961), held that Republic Act No. 938 , as amended, which grants local governments authority “to regulate… the establishment, maintenance, and operation of… cockpits,” does not confer blanket authority to permit cockfighting on any day. The power to regulate cockpits is distinct from the power to regulate cockfighting days. The authority to determine the days on which cockfighting is permitted remains governed by Sections 2285 and 2286 of the Revised Administrative Code, which were not repealed or amended by Republic Act No. 938 . The ordinance, by authorizing cockfighting on a Thursday, contravened these general laws. The Court also noted that a subsequent bill in Congress to expressly grant municipal councils such power failed to pass, indicating the absence of such authority under existing law.
DISPOSITIVE: The decision of the Court of First Instance of Cebu is affirmed. Costs against appellants.