GR L 25513; (March, 1968) (Digest)
G.R. No. L-25513 March 27, 1968
THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, vs. ROSAURO DIONISIO Y CRUZ, defendant-appellant.
FACTS
Rosauro Dionisio y Cruz was charged before the Court of First Instance of Manila with violating Republic Act No. 3063 . The information alleged that on or about August 19, 1962, in Manila, the accused, who was not duly authorized by the Games and Amusement Board to conduct a horse race, willfully and unlawfully offered, arranged, and collected bets for the Special Daily Double Race being conducted at the Sta. Ana Racing Club in Makati, Rizal. For this purpose, he was found in possession of cash amounting to P8.50, a Nueva Era Racing Program dated August 19, 1962, a list of bets, a ballpen, and a booklet of Daily Double receipts. Initially pleading not guilty, the accused later withdrew that plea and voluntarily pleaded guilty to the charge. The trial court found him guilty beyond reasonable doubt and sentenced him to one month of imprisonment.
ISSUE
The sole issue raised by the appellant is whether the penalty provided for and applied to his offense violates the constitutional prohibition against excessive fines and cruel and unusual punishment under Article III, Section 1, clause 19 of the Philippine Constitution.
RULING
The Supreme Court affirmed the decision of the trial court. The Court ruled that the penalty imposed (one month imprisonment) does not constitute cruel and unusual punishment. The constitutional prohibition refers to penalties that are inhuman, barbarous, or shocking to the conscience. Mere severity does not make a punishment cruel and unusual; it must be “flagrantly and plainly oppressive” or “wholly disproportionate to the nature of the offense as to shock the moral sense of the community.” Fines and imprisonment, by themselves, are not in this category. The determination of what evils are pernicious and how they should be corrected is primarily a legislative function. The Court cited the view that unsupervised gambling is detrimental to society, supporting the legislative intent behind the law. Therefore, the penalty was upheld as constitutional.