THE UNITED STATES, plaintiffappellee, vs.

JOSE TAMPARONG, ET
AL., defendants-appellants No. 9527.
August 23, 1915
Ponente: J. Trent
FACTS
(a) Defendants were convicted for
having played the game of chance
called Monte, in violation of Ordinance
No. 35
(b) Defendants appealed to the Court of
First Instance, where they were again
tried and convicted upon the same charge
(c) 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 last10 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.
https://www.scribd.com/document/15659
3507/US-vs-Tamparong-Case-Digest