G.R. No. 205022, July 3, 2019
CARLITO L. MIRANDO, JR., Petitioner vs. PHILIPPINE CHARITY SWEEPSTAKES OFFICE and MANOLITO MORATO, Respondents

FACTS

Petitioner Carlito L. Mirando, Jr. claimed to be the winner of the P120 million jackpot prize from the March 9, 1996 PCSO lottery draw. He alleged that he purchased the winning ticket at the ACT Theater outlet in Cubao, validated it there on March 10, 1996, where a congratulatory message purportedly appeared on the monitor, and later presented the ticket to then PCSO Chairman Manolito Morato on March 18, 1996 to claim the prize. Mirando asserted that Morato took the ticket, altered it, and subsequently informed him the prize had already been claimed by another winner from Batangas who bought the ticket at the Zenco Footsteps outlet in Pasay City.
The PCSO and Morato denied Mirando’s claim. They presented computer records and backup tapes establishing that the sole winning ticket was indeed sold at the Zenco outlet, and the prize had been validly claimed. They demonstrated that no ticket with the winning combination was sold at the ACT Theater outlet and that the validation process described by Mirando was technically impossible, as the machines do not display congratulatory messages but instead issue a claim ticket.

ISSUE

Whether the Court of Appeals erred in affirming the trial court’s dismissal of Mirando’s complaint for damages, which was grounded on its factual finding that he failed to prove his ownership of the winning lottery ticket.

RULING

The Supreme Court denied the petition and affirmed the lower courts’ rulings. The core issue involved the determination of where the preponderance of evidence lay—a question of fact not reviewable under a Rule 45 petition, which is limited to questions of law. The Court found no compelling reason to deviate from this rule, as the factual conclusions of the Regional Trial Court and the Court of Appeals were supported by the evidence.
The RTC and CA correctly found that respondents’ evidence was more credible and weighty. The PCSO’s computerized records conclusively showed the winning ticket originated from the Zenco outlet. Furthermore, the validation process described by petitioner was proven false through a court demonstration. In contrast, Mirando’s evidence was fraught with inconsistencies and improbabilities, such as his unreasonable delay in claiming the massive prize and the NBI’s finding that his presented ticket bore signs of tampering. He also failed to substantiate his allegation that Morato altered the ticket. The burden of proof rests upon the party making the affirmative allegation, and Mirando failed to discharge this burden with credible evidence.