People v. Acuña
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: The appellants were convicted in the Court of First Instance of Iloilo for violating Article 343 of the Penal Code, which punishes bankers, proprietors, and players in unlawful gaming houses. The judge, accompanied by court officers, visited a house on April 30, 1901, and found several individuals, including the appellants, playing the game of "monte." The banker was identified as Jacinto Ramos. The usual apparatus for the game and approximately 89 pesos in money were seized and declared forfeited under Article 345 of the Penal Code. Procedural History: The appellants were convicted in the Court of First Instance of Iloilo. The Petition: The appellants appealed their conviction.
Issue(s)
Whether the house in question constituted a "gaming house" as defined by law. Whether the appellant Teaño was a player or a mere spectator. Whether Antonio Acuña could be held responsible as the proprietor.
Ruling
The judgment of the court below is affirmed, with costs, and the case is remanded for execution.
Ratio Decidendi
On the issue of whether the house was a gaming house: The Court affirmed the conviction, holding that the house was indeed a gaming house. This was established by the testimony of Mariano Nara and Ceferino M. Fontbuena, who had witnessed gambling in the house on occasions distinct from the raid. Perfecto Izar testified that he was employed by Antonio Acuña to bring players to the house, receiving a percentage of the profits as compensation. The evidence furnished by the nature of the things found in the house by the judge also strongly supported this characterization. The Court emphasized that the definition of a gaming house requires it to be "specially devoted to the encouragement or promotion" of gaming. The presence of gambling apparatus and money, coupled with testimony of prior gambling activities and employment of individuals to solicit players, sufficiently established the house's character as a place where unlawful gaming was carried on as a business by the lessee. The Court further noted that the length of time the unlawful business had continued was immaterial once it was shown to have been established on the premises. On the issue of whether the appellant Teaño was a player or a mere spectator: The Court found that Teaño was indeed a player. The act drawn up by the judge, reciting what was discovered during the visit, explicitly stated that Teaño was among those playing the game. The Court found no evidence presented by the defense to justify the conclusion that this statement in the official act was incorrect. Therefore, Teaño's claim of being a mere spectator was rejected. On the issue of whether Antonio Acuña could be held responsible as the proprietor: The Court held that Antonio Acuña could be held responsible as the proprietor. It was admitted that Acuña was the lessee of the premises during the period covered by the evidence. Citing a judgment of the Supreme Court of Spain dated January 10, 1882, the Court established that a lessee of premises where unlawful gaming is conducted can be held responsible as the proprietor.
Main Doctrine
A house is considered a gaming house if it is specially devoted to the encouragement or promotion of gaming, and the length of time the unlawful business has continued is immaterial once it is established on the premises.