|
|
|
|
|
THE
UNITED STATES,
G.
R.
No. 14258
August
2, 1919
-versus-
EUGENIO BAGUIO, Defendant-Appellant. JOHNSON,
J :
On the 24th day of January
1917, the Prosecuting Attorney of the Province of Laguna presented a
Complaint
in the Court of First Instance of said Province in which the defendant
was charged with a violation of the Gambling Law (Act No. 1757). The
Complaint
alleged:
"Acts committed in violation of Act No. 1757." Upon said Complaint, the
defendant was duly arrested, arraigned, plead not guilty, tried, found
guilty of the crime charged and sentenced by the Honorable Manuel Camus
to pay a fine of P100 and in case of insolvency, to suffer subsidiary
imprisonment
in accordance with the provisions of the law, and to pay the costs.
From
that sentence the defendant appealed.
After hearing the evidence adduced during the trial of the cause, the lower court found that the same showed the following facts to be true beyond a reasonable doubt:
"Second. Each holder of a 'libreta' or member of the 'Turnuhan' is obliged to pay the accused as the director or manager P1 weekly. "Third. Each and every one, therefore, of the holders of 'libretas' is obliged to pay P500 throughout the whole existence of the 'Turnuhan' society. "Fourth. In return for this, each and every one of the 'libreta' holders is entitled to receive the sum, commonly known as premium, of P500 at any one week within the 500 weeks. "Fifth. The time when each libreta holder is to receive his P500 is determined by chance. "Sixth. For the purpose of determining who is to receive the P500, 'sorteos' [casting lots] are held every Sunday. On this day the number of each 'libreta' holder — 1 to 500 — is placed in a 'tambiola' and in another one 499 blank checks and one marked with the word 'suerte' are also placed. Then a number is drawn from the first 'tambiola' simultaneously with the check from the second one, and the number that is drawn at the time the check marked 'suerte' is drawn is entitled to the prize or premium. "Seventh. The number representing a libreta holder which has already obtained a prize of P500 is no longer included and counted with the others in subsequent 'sorteos' though the libreta holder continues paying weekly due of P1 until he has completed paying at the end of 500 weeks the agreed P500. "Eighth. The accused gets his remuneration by either receiving the three first prizes or a percentage on the prizes." After
a careful examination
of the evidence, We are persuaded that the above findings of fact are
clearly
supported thereby. The only question presented by the appellant is
whether
or not, under such facts, the appellant is guilty of a violation of Act
No. 1757.
"Gambling,"
as defined
by Section 1 of Act No. 1757, consists: (a) in the playing of any game
for money or any representative of value or valuable consideration or
thing,
the result of which game depends wholly or chiefly upon chance or
hazard;
or (b) in the use of any mechanical invention or contrivance to
determine
by chance the loser or winner of money or of any representative of
value
or of any valuable consideration or thing. Section 7 of said act
prohibits
absolutely "the playing at and the conducting of any game of monte,
jueteng,
or any form of lottery or policy or any banking or percentage game, or
the use of any mechanical invention or contrivance to determine by
chance
the winner or loser of money or of any representative of value or of
any
valuable consideration or thing." Section 7 further provides that
"any person taking any part therein or owning or operating any such
mechanical
invention or contrivance shall be punished as provided in Section 3 of
said Act."
The
lower court held
that the defendant was guilty of conducting a lottery in violation of
the
law. The Attorney-General, Honorable Quintin Paredes, in a very
carefully
prepared brief, with the citation of many authorities, reaches the
conclusion
that the lower court was right and that his decision should be
sustained.
If
the defendant and
appellant is guilty of conducting a lottery, he is guilty of a
violation
of the law and should be punished in accordance with the terms thereof.
The law gives us no definition of a lottery. Act No. 1757 is not a new
law in criminology. Similar laws exist in nearly every state of the
Union,
as well as in nearly every civilized nation. Resort may, therefore, be
had to the decisions of the courts where similar laws had been enforced
and interpreted. The Supreme Court of the United States in the case of
Horner vs. United States [147 U.S., 449], in the course of a very
interesting
opinion, defined a lottery as "a distribution of prizes by lot or
chance;
a game of hazard in which small sums of money are ventured for the
chance
of obtaining a larger value, either in money or in other articles." In
the course of the opinion, the Court said, "They are not in the legal
acceptation
of the term mala in se but may properly be made mala prohibita.
They are a species of gambling and wrong in their influence."
In
law, the term
lottery
embraces all schemes for the distribution of prizes by chance, such as
policy-playing, gift-exhibitions, prize-concerts, raffles at fairs,
etc.,
and includes various forms of gambling. [Horner vs. U.S., 147 U.S.,
449;
Public Clearing House vs. Coyne, 194 U.S., 497, 515].
In the case of Public Clearing House vs. Coyne [194 U.S., 497], the facts were very analogous to the facts before Us. In that case, the plan contemplated that each person who became a member or cooperator should pay a certain enrollment fee and agree to pay a certain sum per month thereafter. At the end of a fixed period, the members were to receive a certain portion of the funds so raised. The success of the plan obviously depended upon constantly and rapidly increasing the number of subscribers or cooperators. There was sure to be loss to every one interested in the enterprise as soon as the number of new members ceased to increase. The Supreme Court of the United States held that the scheme was a lottery and said: "the scheme lacks the elements of a legitimate business enterprise, and we think there was no error in holding it to be a lottery within the meaning of the statute." It was held in the case of Equitable Loan Co. vs. Waring [117 Ga., 599] that three elements enter into a lottery scheme: (a) A consideration; (b) a chance; and (c) a prize or some advantage or any inequality in amount or value which is in the nature of a prize. We think that these elements clearly appear from the facts above stated. [U.S. vs. Filart and Singson, 30 Phil. Rep., 80; 17 R.C.L., p. 1223]. We are fully persuaded that the acts of the defendant constituted a violation of Section 7 of Act No. 1757, and he should, therefore, be punished in accordance with the provisions of the law. Considering the character of the crime and its extent and bad influence upon the people of the community, We are of the opinion that the sentence of the lower court should be increased, and that the defendant should be sentenced to pay a fine of P500 and the costs. With that modification of the sentence of the lower court, the same is hereby confirmed. It is, therefore, hereby ordered and decreed that the defendant and appellant be sentenced to pay a fine of P500, and in case of insolvency to suffer subsidiary imprisonment in accordance with the provisions of the law, and to pay the costs. So ordered. Arellano, C.J., Torres, Araullo, Street, Avanceña and Moir, JJ., concur. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|