G.R. No. L-18899; February 29, 1964
IN RE: SEARCH WARRANT SEIZURE OF SLOT MACHINES WITH OTHER PARAPHERNALIA IN PASAY CITY. OWNERS OF 51 OF THE JACKPOT SLOT MACHINES, petitioners-appellees, vs. THE DIRECTOR OF THE NATIONAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION, oppositor-appellant.

FACTS

The Director of the National Bureau of Investigation (NBI) appeals an order from the Court of First Instance of Rizal directing the return of fifty-one slot machines and their paraphernalia to their owners. These machines were seized under search warrants issued by the court on September 1, 1959. The seizure also included other slot machines operated without a license, which became the subject of separate criminal cases.
Prior to the seizure, the fifty-one machines in question were being operated in Pasay City under licenses issued pursuant to City Ordinance No. 106. The special prosecutor handling the related criminal cases recommended no charges be filed against the owners of these licensed machines and advised their release. The Secretary of Justice initially ordered the NBI Director to release them, but this order was suspended over concerns of potential contempt from the issuing court. The owners then filed a motion in court for the return of their property.

ISSUE

The main issue is whether the licensed slot machines constitute a nuisance per se or are intended for unlawful use, thereby justifying their continued seizure and forfeiture.

RULING

The Supreme Court affirmed the lower court’s order for the return of the machines. The Court rejected the NBI Director’s argument that the machines were a public nuisance or illegal per se, which relied on the precedent in Philips vs. Municipal Mayor. In Philips, the Court invalidated a Caloocan ordinance authorizing slot machines because municipal councils have a duty under the Revised Administrative Code to prohibit gambling.
The legal logic distinguishes the present case based on a crucial statutory grant of authority. Republic Act No. 183, the Charter of Pasay City, expressly authorizes its Municipal Board “to regulate and fix the amount of license fee for… slot machines.” This is a specific power not granted to the Municipality of Caloocan in the Philips case. Since Pasay City Ordinance No. 106 was enacted under this valid charter authority, and the owners had paid the requisite fees and secured licenses, the operation of these specific machines was legal and licensed. Consequently, they could not be deemed a nuisance or illegal per se. The Court further noted that a slot machine is not inherently a gambling device; its legality depends on its use, and mere possession or operation for amusement does not constitute a crime.