THE UNITED STATES, plaintiff-appellee, vs. JOSE TAMPARONG, ET AL.

,
defendantsappellants No. 9527. August 23, 1915 Ponente: J. Trent FACTS  Defendants
were convicted for having played the game of chance called “Monte,” in violation of
Ordinance No. 35  Defendants appealed to the Court of First Instance, where they
were again tried and convicted upon the same charge  Defendants raised their
appeal to the Supreme Court which ONLY allowed to hear the case on the grounds that
the validity of Ordinance No. 35 was in question ISSUE/s 1. Whether or not
Ordinance No. 35 is valid 2. Whether or not the Supreme Court is required under the
law to examine the evidence for the purpose of determining the guilt or innocence
of the defendants HOLDING/s 1. Yes, Ordinance No. 35 is valid. 2. No. Although the
SC wrote that Act No. 1627 does not explicitly limit their powers from examining
issues of facts, it likewise does not expressly authorize them to do so. The SC,
nevertheless, interpreted that the law was NOT framed to confer them the said
power. RATIO/s 1. For the issue at hand, the SC merely wrote, “The first question
is answered in the affirmative by this court in the case of the United States vs.
Joson (26 Phil. 01). The cases are on all fours, and a further discussion of this
branch of the case is unnecessary.” Nothing more. 2.1 The SC has revisited prior
laws to ascertain the intention of the „framers‟ of the amended section of Act No.
1627; the latter being ambiguous in the sense that it did not explicitly allow nor
prohibit SC to examine issues of facts on appeals. The SC found, in light of former
practices and from further understanding the circumstances in which the framers of
the amended law were subject to, that the amendment was not meant to confer in them
the jurisdiction of reviewing questions of fact. 2.2 The SC further distinguished
their holding from Loeb vs. Columbia Township Trustees, and Boise Artesian Hot and
Cold Water Co., Ltd. vs. Boise City. These two latter cases were taken to the US SC
directly from the circuit courts as writs of error, (not as appeals) where the US
SC does not only have jurisdiction to review constitutional questions but also
every other question properly arising. 2.3 In at least fourteen other cases, the SC
has showed that the ruling for this issue in the last 10 years has remained
uniform. And that the court, since its organization, never held that it had the
power to review facts touching guilt of an accused person, ONLY as to when the
appeal involved the validity or constitutionality of a statute or the
constitutionality of a municipal or township ordinance.
Digester‟ s Notes:  SCRA was 14 pages long and about 12 pages were exhausted to
explain holding for the 2nd issue  The SCRA made no attempt to expound on
Ordinance No. 35 and “monte” and therefore l ed the digester to believe that they
were of little issue to the case‟s facts