US vs Tamparong Case Digest

September 11, 2017 | Author: Kurt Young | Category: Supreme Court Of The United States, Supreme Courts, Question Of Law, Local Ordinance, Appeal
Share Embed Donate

Short Description

Download US vs Tamparong Case Digest...


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 led the digester to believe that they were of little issue to the case‟s facts

View more...


Copyright ©2017 KUPDF Inc.