7/2/24, 1:42 PM Case Digest: G.R. No.

9527 - People vs Tamparong

Title
People vs Tamparong

Case Ponente Decision Date

G.R. No. 9527 TRENT, J Aug 22, 1915

The Supreme Court affirms the validity of Ordinance No. 35 and upholds the
conviction of defendants in a case involving the game of chance "monte,"
clarifying that their review is limited to the constitutionality of the ordinance and
does not extend to reviewing the evidence of guilt or innocence.

Case Digest (G.R. No. 9527)

Comprehensive

Facts:
In the case of "People vs. Tamparong," the defendants, including Jose Tamparong, were
convicted by the justice of the peace of Baguio for playing the game of chance known as
"monte," which was in violation of Ordinance No. 35. The initial conviction occurred in
the justice of the peace court, and upon appeal, the defendants were again convicted by
the Court of First Instance. The case was subsequently brought before the Supreme
Court of the Philippines on the grounds that the validity of Ordinance No. 35 was
questioned during the trial. The appellants represented themselves, while the appellee
was represented by Acting Attorney-General Harvey. The case was decided on August
23, 1915, with Justice Trent delivering the opinion of the court.

Issue:
1. Is Ordinance No. 35 valid?
2. Is the Supreme Court required under the law to examine the evidence to determine
the guilt or innocence of the defendants?

Ruling:
1. The Supreme Court affirmed the validity of Ordinance No. 35.
2. The Supreme Court ruled that it is not required to examine the evidence to
determine the guilt or innocence of the defendants.

Ratio:
The Supreme Court's decision was based on the interpretation of Section 43 of General
Orders No. 58, which allows appeals from justices' courts to the Supreme Court only
when the validity or constitutionality of a statute or ordinance is involved. The court
https://jur.ph/jurisprudence/digest/u-s-v-tamparong?q=US vs tamparong#_ 1/2
7/2/24, 1:42 PM Case Digest: G.R. No. 9527 - People vs Tamparong

emphasized that this procedural amendment does not extend to reviewing the facts of
the case but is confined to determining the validity or constitutionality of the statute or
ordinance in question. The court referenced prior cases, such as "United States vs.
Joson," which had uniformly interpreted Section 43 to limit the Supreme Court's review
to statutory questions. The court also discussed the historical context of criminal
procedure in the Philippines, noting that prior to General Orders No. 58, appeals from
justices' courts were final and conclusive in the Courts of First Instance, except for
statutory questions. The court concluded that the framers of General Orders No. 58
intended to maintain this limitation, thereby restricting the Supreme Court's jurisdiction
to statutory questions and not extending it to factual reviews. Consequently, the court
affirmed the judgment of the lower court, validating Ordinance No. 35 and upholding the
conviction of the defendants.

https://jur.ph/jurisprudence/digest/u-s-v-tamparong?q=US vs tamparong#_ 2/2