ChanRobles™ Virtual Law Library | chanrobles.com™  
Main Index Law Library Philippine Laws, Statutes & Codes Latest Legal Updates Philippine Legal Resources Significant Philippine Legal Resources Worldwide Legal Resources Philippine Supreme Court Decisions United States Jurisprudence
Prof. Joselito Guianan Chan's The Labor Code of the Philippines, Annotated Labor Standards & Social Legislation Volume I of a 3-Volume Series 2019 Edition (3rd Revised Edition)
 

 
Chan Robles Virtual Law Library
 









 

 
UNITED STATES SUPREME COURT JURISPRUDENCE
 

 
PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT JURISPRUDENCE
 

   
August-1916 Jurisprudence                 

  • G.R. No. 9366 August 1, 1916 - YAP TICO & CO. v. H. C. ANDERSON

    034 Phil 626

  • G.R. No. 10010 August 1, 1916 - CHU JAN v. LUCIO BERNAS

    034 Phil 631

  • G.R. No. 11371 August 1, 1916 - UNITED STATES v. CECILIA MEMORACION

    034 Phil 633

  • G.R. No. 11497 August 1, 1916 - UNITED STATES v. LORENZO BLANZA

    034 Phil 639

  • G.R. No. 11597 August 1, 1916 - UNITED STATES v. DARIO PADILLA

    034 Phil 641

  • G.R. No. 11634 August 1, 1916 - UNITED STATES v. BARAMBANGAN

    034 Phil 645

  • G.R. No. 8452 August 2, 1916 - DEAN C.WORCESTER v. MARTIN OCAMPO

    034 Phil 646

  • G.R. No. 11389 August 2, 1916 - UNITED STATES v. JUAN SELLANO

    034 Phil 655

  • G.R. No. 11425 August 2, 1916 - UNITED STATES v. NGAN PING

    034 Phil 660

  • G.R. Nos. 10114 & 10137 August 3, 1916 - MELECIO MONTINOLA v. JOSE G. MONTALVO ET AL.

    034 Phil 662

  • G.R. No. 11050 August 7, 1916 - UNITED STATES v. LIM SOON

    034 Phil 668

  • G.R. No. 11159 August 7, 1916 - UNITED STATES v. MANUEL B. ASENSI

    034 Phil 671

  • G.R. No. 11420 August 7, 1916 - UNITED STATES v. WAN YANG

    034 Phil 679

  • G.R. No. 9957 August 8, 1916 - PERFECTO DE LA VEGA ET AL. v. TOMAS BALLILOS (or BALIELOS)

    034 Phil 683

  • G.R. No. 11477 August 8, 1916 - UNITED STATES v. TORIBIIO ANDAYA

    034 Phil 690

  • G.R. No. 11507 August 8, 1916 - UNITED STATES v. SEVERO DE LOS REYES

    034 Phil 693

  • G.R. No. 11510 August 8, 1916 - UNITED STATES v. BAHATAN

    034 Phil 695

  • G.R. No. 10712 August 10, 1916 - ANSELMO FERRAZZINI v. CARLOS GSELL

    034 Phil 697

  • G.R. No. 11566 August 10, 1916 - UNITED STATES v. MARCELO JOSE

    034 Phil 715

  • G.R. No. 11565 August 11, 1916 - UNITED STATES v. MARCELO JOSE

    034 Phil 723

  • G.R. No. 11162 August 12, 1916 - UNITED STATES v. F. LULING

    034 Phil 725

  • G.R. No. 11530 August 12, 1916 - UNITED STATES v. JUAN PONS

    034 Phil 729

  • G.R. No. 10100 August 15, 1916 - GALO ABRENICA v. MANUEL GONDA

    034 Phil 739

  • G.R. No. 11165 August 15, 1916 - UNITED STATES v. MANUEL B. ASENSI

    034 Phil 750

  • G.R. No. 11338 August 15, 1916 - UNITED STATES v. TAN OCO

    034 Phil 772

  • G.R. No. 11480 August 17, 1916 - UNITED STATES v. ROBERTO PANGILION

    034 Phil 786

  • G.R. No. 10374 August 18, 1916 - PIO MERCADO v. MARIA TAN-LINGCO

    034 Phil 793

  • G.R. No. 10891 August 18, 1916 - UNITED STATES v. EUGENIO KILAYKO

    034 Phil 796

  • G.R. No. 11711 August 18, 1916 - MANUEL CEMBRANO CHAN GUANCO v. INSULAR COLLECTOR OF CUSTOMS

    034 Phil 802

  • G.R. No. 10988 August 19, 1916 - ROQUE SAMSON v. BRAULIO GARCIA

    034 Phil 805

  • G.R. No. 11488 August 19, 1916 - UNITED STATES v. LICERIO CASTEN

    034 Phil 808

  • G.R. No. 11653 August 19, 1916 - UNITED STATES v. GENOVEVA AQUINO

    034 Phil 813

  • G.R. No. 12096 August 22, 1916 - EMILIO DE CASTRO v. FERNANDO SALAS

    034 Phil 818

  • G.R. No. 11401 August 23, 1916 - UNITED STATES v. GREGORIO CRISTOBAL ET AL.

    034 Phil 825

  • G.R. No. 11427 August 23, 1916 - VY LIONG LIN v. INSULAR COLLECTOR OF CUSTOMS

    034 Phil 832

  • G.R. No. 11505 August 25, 1916 - UNITED STATES v. SATAOA BUNGAOIL

    034 Phil 835

  • G.R. No. 11737 August 25, 1916 - UNITED STATES v. MARCELO JOSE ET AL.

    034 Phil 840

  • G.R. No. 11739 August 25, 1916 - CESAR MERCADER v. ADOLPH WISLIZENUS

    034 Phil 846

  • G.R. No. 11986 August 25, 1916 - MANUEL ORIA Y GONZALEZ v. RICHARD CAMPBELL

    034 Phil 850

  • G.R. No. 11071 August 26, 1916 - S. CHASE DE KRAFFT v. APOLINAR VELEZ

    034 Phil 854

  • G.R. No. 10868 August 28, 1916 - LEOCADIO JOAQUIN v. O. MITSUMINE

    034 Phil 858

  • G.R. No. 11267 August 31, 1916 - SEE CHIAT SEE HUAN v. INSULAR COLLECTOR OF CUSTOMS

    034 Phil 865

  • G.R. No. 11562 August 31, 1916 - UNITED STATES v. SIMON LAZARO

    034 Phil 871

  • G.R. No. 11772 August 31, 1916 - UNITED STATES v. GAN LIAN PO

    034 Phil 880

  •  





     
     

    G.R. No. 11420  August 7, 1916 - UNITED STATES v. WAN YANG<br /><br />034 Phil 679

     
    PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT DECISIONS

    SECOND DIVISION

    [G.R. No. 11420. August 7, 1916. ]

    THE UNITED STATES, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. WAN YANG, CHAO WUN CHY, SONG TONG, and YONG HONG, Defendants-Appellants.

    Pedro Valdez Liongson for Appellants.

    Attorney-General Avanceña for Appellee.

    SYLLABUS


    GAMING; "YAMPONG OR LIAMPO." — Held: Under the facts stated in the opinion, that the game of yampong or liampo is a game of chance, punishable under the law prohibiting gambling.


    D E C I S I O N


    JOHNSON, J. :


    These defendants were charged with a violation of section 7 of Act No. 1757, the law prohibiting gambling. The complaint alleged:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

    "That the said accused, Wan Yang, Chao Wun Chy, Song Tong and Yong Hong, in or about the month of August, 1915, in the municipality of Bacolor, Pampanga, P. I., and in a house situated in the said municipality, did, willfully, unlawfully and criminally, play the game known as ’yampong,’ game of chance, the accused Wan Yang acting as banker and the three other accused bettors, the accused using for the game a certain mechanical contrivance or device which determines by chance who wins and who loses the money wagered; the sum of P92.98, the mechanical apparatus employed in the game and the other articles which served as accessories thereof having been seized in the place where the game was being conducted. With violation of the section and Act aforecited (Act No. 1757, section 7)."cralaw virtua1aw library

    Upon said complaint the defendants were duly arrested, arraigned, pleaded not guilty, were tried, found guilty of the crime charged in the complaint, and each sentenced by the Honorable Percy M. Moir to pay a fine of P300 and in case of insolvency to suffer subsidiary to suffer subsidiary imprisonment, and each to pay one-fourth part of the costs. From that sentence the defendants appealed to this court.

    In this court the defendants attempt to show that the lower court committed an error in not sustaining the demurrer which presented to the complaint in the lower court. They allege that said demurrer should have been sustained for the reason that there was no proof before the court showing that the game of chance. The defendants have evidently overlooked the rule that you cannot raise a question of fact by a demurrer. The complaint was, therefore, sufficient upon that question and that demurrer was rightfully overruled. When defects in a complaint are not apparent on the face of the pleadings an objection can not be raised by a demurrer. Such objection must be raised by an answer. Objections to a complaint can only be raised by demurrer when such objections are apparent upon the face of the complaint.

    The appellant further contends that the evidence adduced during the trial of the cause does not show that the game at which they were playing was a game of chance and that therefore they are not guilty under section 7 of Act No. 1757. During the trial of the cause the defendants demonstrated the method of playing the alleged game ("yampong" or as it is sometimes called "liampo"). The prosecution also presented a witness who is familiar with said game and who also gave, in minute detail, the method of playing the same. The method by which the game is played seems to be about as follows:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

    "It is a game played by means of a rectangular, brass device, weighing more than two pounds; a second device, also of brass, marked with a visible line, is inserted in the first as in a cover. In this second device or cube there is inserted a square die, the surfaces of which are in two colors, red and white, and inscribed with Chinese characters. After this die had been set in its proper place in the second device, it is completely covered by the larger one, the whole then having the appearance of a single piece. All these arrangements are effected by the banker while the contrivance is concealed under his shirt or under a sheet and this concealment seems to give him a certain advantage over the players. After this is done, some one of the players gives the device a turn on a piece of cloth more than a meter square marked by lines radiating from the center to form squares. Between the lines are separately marked the numbers 1, 2, 3 and 4. The banker stations himself opposite the number 1 and bets are placed on the corresponding lines after the device has stopped turning. Then the outer cube is lifted, and the number toward which the red side of the die points is the winning number and the other numbers lose."cralaw virtua1aw library

    The foregoing description of the manner in which the game is played is in conformity with the manner as given by both the prosecution and the defense.

    The record shows that it is a common game of chance played among the Chinamen, not only here but in China as well. The lower court, after having seen the game played, or rather having seen the method exemplified by the witnesses during the trial of the cause, reached the conclusion that it was a game of chance. The defendants admitted that they were playing at said game of "yampong" or "liampo."cralaw virtua1aw library

    After an examination of the method by which the game is played, taking into consideration that it is generally regarded as a game of chance, as was stated by the witnesses for the prosecution, we are convicted that it is a game of chance and is one of the games prohibited by section 7 of Act No. 1757. A careful examination of the record fails to disclose any error upon which a modification or reversal of the sentence of the lower court can be based. The same is therefore hereby affirmed, with costs. So ordered.

    Torres, Trent, and Araullo, JJ., concur.

    Separate Opinions


    MORELAND, J., dissenting:chanrob1es virtual 1aw library

    I think the demurrer was good. The game of "yampong" is not specially mentioned in the statute (Act No. 1757) as a prohibited game. It is not a game generally or commonly known as a gambling game; in fact, no gambling game of this name has ever heretofore been before this court, so far as I know; and, therefore, the fact that it is a gambling game cannot be established by the principle of judicial notice. The information alleges that it is a game of chance — a pure conclusion which in no way takes the place of facts which should have been alleged so that the court might know the nature of the game instead of being obliged to take the bare word of the prosecuting attorney as to whether it was a game of chance or not. "Yampong" not being a game generally or commonly known as a gambling game, and not being mention by the statute as a prohibited game, the facts should have been set forth in the information which show the nature of the game. The accused is entitled to have before him in the information "the acts or omission complained of as constituting the crime . . ." (Sec. 6 Code Crim. Proc.) . No acts have been set forth — only conclusions drawn from acts not alleged. Men may not be put on their trial and pilloried before the public on the mere conclusion of a prosecuting attorney.

    The information states that the game was played with the aid of a "mechanical device." No description of this device is given. What it is, how it is used or in what respect it assists in making the game one of chance no one knows. Until the evidence is offered on the trial the court is ignorant of the nature of the game, how it is played, what kind of mechanical device is used by the players — in short, does not know whether it is a gambling game or not.

    There is no doubt about the guilt of the accused on the evidence. If the questions raised by the appeal from the order overruling the demurrer are settled adversely to the appellant, the case on the merits is clear.

    G.R. No. 11420  August 7, 1916 - UNITED STATES v. WAN YANG<br /><br />034 Phil 679


    Back to Home | Back to Main

     

    QUICK SEARCH

    cralaw

       

    cralaw



     
      Copyright © ChanRobles Publishing Company Disclaimer | E-mail Restrictions
    ChanRobles™ Virtual Law Library | chanrobles.com™
     
    RED