Professional Documents
Culture Documents
People vs. Gozo, 53 SCRA 476, Oct. 1973
People vs. Gozo, 53 SCRA 476, Oct. 1973
Case Digest: The People of the Philippines, plaintiff-appellee vs. Loreta Gozo, defendant-appelant
No.L-36409, Oct.26, 1973
Introduction:
This is a case of Loreta Gozo, convicted of violation of City Ordinance of Olongapo challenging
the higher court decision on constitutionality in relation to Jurisdiction based on Article 3-Declaration
of Principles and State Policies and in relation to Due Process which is based on Article 4 Bill of
Rights citing the case of People vs. Fajardo.
Facts:
Loreta Gozo bought a house and lot located inside the US Naval Reservation Area within the
territorial jurisdiction of Olongapo City. She demolished the old house and built another one in its place
without building permit from the City Mayor of Olongapo.
On Dec. 29, 1966, her four (4) carpenters were apprehended while working on the house of the
accused by the personnel of City Engineering Office and Olongapo City Police Force and brought to the
City for interrogation.
After due investigation, Loreta Gozo was charged with violation of Municipal Ordinance No.14
series of 1964 with the City Fiscals Office. The City Court found her guilty of violating Municipal
Ordinance No.14, Series of 1964 and sentenced her to imprisonment of one (1) month as well as to pay
the costs.
She elevated the case to the Court of First Instance invoking due process citing the case of
People vs. Fajardo which was taken out of context thus affirmed the decision of the City Court
convicting her of violation of city ordinance for failing to secure mayors permit before constructing her
new house. She appealed her case to the Court of Appeal, this time invoking that the ordinance is not
applicable to her because it is located inside the United States Military Reservation Area which was
within the territorial jurisdiction of Olongapo City.
Issue:
1. Whether or not, the decision of the court is unconstitutional on ground of
jurisdiction and due process.
Rulings:
1.
The court has legal basis in convicting Loreta Gozo for violating the City Ordinance of not
securing mayors permit for building construction. Municipalities and cities have the authority
to enact ordinances in lieu of statutory powers vested upon. They are considered as municipal
corporations and as such the authority is predicated upon general welfare clause. The general
welfare clause is wide in scope, well nigh all embracing, covering every aspect of public health,
public morals, public safety and the well being and good order of the community. Municipal
corporations authority is subject to limitations. If its exercise is in violation of any
constitutional right, then its validity could be challenge. At the very least, its applicability to
the person adversely affected could be questioned.
Loreta Gozo challenged the applicability of the ordinance invoking due process, a contention
premise on jurisprudence, People vs. Fajardo. The cited jurisprudence was taken out of context
in the sense that the applicability of the ordinance presented some element of oppression to
Fajardo. In Loreta Gozos case, the element of oppression is not present and thus her
contention has no leg to stand.
2.
3.
Decision:
The higher court affirmed the decision of the lower courts as it found Loreta Gozo guilty beyond
reasonable doubt of a violation of Municipal Ordinance No.14, Series of 1964.