Scribd
Upload
2K views2 pages

US V Tamparong

1) The case involved defendants convicted of playing the game of chance called monte in violation of Ordinance No. 35. They appealed to the Supreme Court questioning the validity of the ordinance and whether the SC could examine evidence to determine guilt. 2) The Supreme Court held that Ordinance No. 35 was valid based on a previous case. The Court also held that it could not examine questions of fact from appeals, as the intent of relevant laws was to allow review of statutory questions by the SC but not rehearings of facts. 3) Based on the intent of amendments to prior laws and jurisprudence, the Supreme Court's role in appeals was limited to reviewing the constitutionality of ordin

Uploaded by

Kobe Lawrence Veneracion
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
2K views2 pages

US V Tamparong

1) The case involved defendants convicted of playing the game of chance called monte in violation of Ordinance No. 35. They appealed to the Supreme Court questioning the validity of the ordinance and whether the SC could examine evidence to determine guilt. 2) The Supreme Court held that Ordinance No. 35 was valid based on a previous case. The Court also held that it could not examine questions of fact from appeals, as the intent of relevant laws was to allow review of statutory questions by the SC but not rehearings of facts. 3) Based on the intent of amendments to prior laws and jurisprudence, the Supreme Court's role in appeals was limited to reviewing the constitutionality of ordin

Uploaded by

Kobe Lawrence Veneracion
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
You are on page 1/ 2

CRIMINAL LAW 1

A.Y. 1819– JUDGE PIMENTEL

ARTICLE and TOPIC Procedural; Can the SC review questions of facts from appeals?

CASE NAME U.S. v. Tamparong, G.R. No. 9527

GROUP MEMBER Prisha Cruz

Pertinent Facts :

● Defendants were convicted by the justice of the peace of Baguio for playing the game of chance
called monte in violation of Ordinance No. 35
● Defendants appealed to the Court of First Instance (CFI)
● They were tried and convicted with the same charge
● They appealed to the SC because the validity of the Ordinance was brought up

Issue:
1. W/O Ordinance No. 35 is valid.
2. W/O the SC is required under the law to examine the evidence for the purpose of determining the
guilt or innocence of the defendants.

Held/Ratio:
1. Yes. Ordinance No. 35 is valid. The Court did not elaborate on this question because the Court
held that the case at bar was on all fours with the case of US v. Joson, which held the validity of
the assailed Ordinance.
2. No. The SC looked at the intent of the framers of several laws to answer the 2nd issue

The Court held that Act No. 1627 was ambiguous because it did not explicitly allow or prohibit
the SC to examine issues of facts on appeals. Section 43 of General Order No. 58 was amended by
said Act, which now reads:

"From all final judgments of the Court of First Instance or courts of similar jurisdiction, and in all
cases in which the law now provides for appeals from said courts, an appeal may be taken to the
Supreme Court as hereinafter prescribed. The convicted party may appeal from any final
judgment of a justice of the peace in a criminal cause to the Court of First Instance by filing a
notice of appeal with such justice within fifteen days after the entry of judgment. Upon such notice
being so filed, the justice shall forward to the Court of First Instance all original papers and a
transcript of all docket entries in the cause, and the provincial fiscal shall thereupon take charge of the
cause in behalf of the prosecution. The judgment of the Court of First Instance in such appeals
shall be final and conclusive, except in cases involving the validity or constitutionality of a
statute or the constitutionality of a municipal or township ordinance."

The Court first differentiated a "writ of error" from an "appeal." The former brings up the record
in an action of law for review of questions of law only. The latter, on the other hand, involves a
rehearing of both the facts and the law. This was the original pracitce.

This previous practice was that no appeals whatsoever were allowed to the SC from judgments of
CFIs in cases originating in the justices' courts. The framers amended this practice to the extent only

1
CRIMINAL LAW 1
A.Y. 1819– JUDGE PIMENTEL
of providing a way by which statutory questions could be reviewed by the SC. The amendment was
not meant to give to the SC the power to rehear questions of fact.

Jurisprudence showed that in appeals, only the constitutionality of an ordinance or law could be
raised in appeals to the SC. The Court used at least 14 other cases to show that in the last 10 years, the
ruling has not changed. SC did not have the power to review facts touching the guilt or innocence of
an accused person.

WHEREFORE, Judgment appealed from is AFFIRMED.

You might also like