G.R. No. L-11420; August 7, 1916
THE UNITED STATES, plaintiff-appellee, vs. WAN YANG, CHAO WUN CHY, SONG TONG, and YONG HONG, defendants-appellants.

FACTS:
The defendants were charged with violating Section 7 of Act No. 1757 (the gambling law) in Bacolor, Pampanga, in August 1915. The complaint alleged they played a game called “yampong” or “liampo,” with Wan Yang as the banker and the others as bettors, using a mechanical contrivance that determined by chance who won or lost money wagered. Cash and the gaming apparatus were seized. The defendants pleaded not guilty, were tried, found guilty, and each sentenced to pay a fine of P300 with subsidiary imprisonment in case of insolvency, plus a share of the costs. They appealed, arguing that the trial court erred in overruling their demurrer to the complaint and that the evidence did not establish “yampong” as a game of chance.

ISSUE:
1. Whether the trial court erred in overruling the demurrer to the complaint.
2. Whether the game “yampong” is a game of chance prohibited under Section 7 of Act No. 1757 .

RULING:
The Supreme Court affirmed the trial court’s judgment.

1. On the demurrer: The Court held the demurrer was properly overruled. A demurrer can only raise objections apparent on the face of the complaint. The complaint sufficiently alleged that “yampong” was a game of chance. Any defect not apparent on the pleadings must be raised in an answer, not by demurrer.

2. On the nature of “yampong”: The Court, after examining the evidence which included a demonstration of the game, found it to be a game of chance. The game involved a brass device containing a die with red and white sides marked with Chinese characters. After the banker secretly set the die, a player would spin the device on a marked cloth. Bets were placed on numbered sections, and the winning number was determined by the side to which the red face of the die pointed. The Court agreed with the trial court’s conclusion and the prosecution’s witnesses that it was a common game of chance among Chinese, both in the Philippines and China, and thus fell within the prohibition of Act No. 1757 .

DISSENTING OPINION (Moreland, J.):
Justice Moreland dissented, arguing the demurrer should have been sustained. Since “yampong” was not specifically listed as a prohibited game in the statute nor commonly known as a gambling game, the information should have alleged the specific facts showing it was a game of chance, not merely state a conclusion. The description of a “mechanical device” was insufficient without details of its operation. While he believed the evidence proved guilt, the complaint was defective for failing to state facts constituting the offense.