GR 2188; (May, 1905) (Digest)

G.R. No. 2188 : May 5, 1905

FACTS:
The appellants were convicted for violating Article 343 of the Penal Code in relation to the illegal numbers game “hueteng.” Santiago Palma was convicted as the owner of the gambling house, while Francisco Palma was convicted as a player. They, along with 26 others, were arrested by police in Santiago’s house. The police found gambling paraphernalia on a table: a bottle (tambiolo) containing numbered balls, envelopes with papers, about 7 pesos, a box with papers, and a book. A government witness described hueteng as a game involving 37 numbered balls, where collectors take bets, record them in a book, and issue slips to bettors. A banker then draws a winning number from a shaken receptacle.

ISSUE:
1. Was the evidence sufficient to convict Francisco Palma as a player in the game of hueteng?
2. Was the evidence sufficient to convict Santiago Palma as the owner or maintainer of a gambling house?

RULING:
The Supreme Court REVERSED the judgment of the lower court and ACQUITTED both appellants.

1. Regarding Francisco Palma (alleged player): The Court acquitted him because there was no evidence that he had placed a bet. His name did not appear in the banker’s book, and he was not found in possession of a bet slip. Mere presence as a bystander in a place where gambling apparatus is found does not constitute the offense of being a player under Article 343.

2. Regarding Santiago Palma (alleged owner of a gambling house): The Court acquitted him because the evidence was insufficient to prove that his house was a “gambling house” devoted to that purpose. There was no proof that hueteng or any other game had been played there previously. The apparatus for hueteng is portable and does not require a specially fitted place. The Court cited prior jurisprudence (U.S. vs. Acuña, U.S. vs. Narvaes, etc.) holding that a single instance of finding gambling tools in a house, without proof of its habitual use for gambling, is not enough to establish it as a gambling house under the law.

The costs of the instance were decreed de oficio.