G.R. No. 248583 , February 3, 2025
ROBERT PLAN Y BELONCIO AND MARK OLIVER D. ENOLVA, PETITIONERS, vs. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, RESPONDENT.

FACTS

Petitioners Robert Plan y Beloncio and Mark Oliver D. Enolva were charged with violation of Presidential Decree No. 1602 (illegal gambling) for allegedly taking active and direct part in the game of “Cara y Cruz” on March 31, 2017, in Quezon City. They pleaded not guilty. The Metropolitan Trial Court found them guilty, a decision affirmed by the Regional Trial Court and later by the Court of Appeals. The petitioners filed a Petition for Review on Certiorari before the Supreme Court. The ponencia granted the petition, acquitting the petitioners due to the prosecution’s failure to establish their guilt beyond reasonable doubt based on the factual findings. In his Concurring Opinion, Justice Leonen agrees with the acquittal but expresses a broader concern regarding the criminalization of the game “cara y cruz” itself, contrasting it with state-authorized casino gambling.

ISSUE

Whether the Court of Appeals erred in affirming petitioners’ guilt beyond reasonable doubt of violation of Presidential Decree No. 1602.

RULING

The ponencia granted the petition and acquitted the petitioners, finding that the evidence on record failed to establish their actual participation in the game of cara y cruz. Justice Leonen, in his Concurring Opinion, concurs with the acquittal but argues further that the offense of playing cara y cruz under Presidential Decree No. 1602 should be re-examined. He finds it baffling that this popular game of chance, often played by the masses, remains illegal while government-franchised casinos, which cater to the middle and upper classes, operate legally. He notes a pattern in case law where arrests for cara y cruz frequently lead to or are used as a pretext for drug-related charges, raising concerns about selective enforcement and the law’s disproportionate impact on the poor.