Owners of Jackpot Slot Machines v. Director of National Bureau of Investigation
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: Fifty-one (51) slot machines and their paraphernalia were seized under search warrants in Pasay City. These machines were being operated by their owners pursuant to licenses issued by Pasay City in conformity with its Ordinance No. 106. Other slot machines, operated without a license, were also seized. Procedural History: The special prosecutor opined that no criminal case should be filed against the owners of the fifty-one (51) licensed slot machines and recommended their release. The Secretary of Justice ordered the Director of the National Bureau of Investigation (NBI) to release the machines. However, the Director suspended the order due to concerns of being held in contempt by the issuing court. The owners then filed a motion for the release of their machines. The Petition: The Director objected to the motion, arguing that the machines are intended for unlawful use (gambling) and are a public nuisance, as well as illegal per se. The lower court overruled the opposition and ordered the release of the machines. The Director appealed this order.
Issue(s)
Whether the slot machines constitute a nuisance per se or will be devoted to an unlawful use if released. Whether the operation of slot machines under a valid license issued by Pasay City, pursuant to its charter and ordinance, is legal.
Ruling
The Court affirmed the order of the lower court directing the release of the slot machines, without special pronouncement as to costs.
Ratio Decidendi
On whether the slot machines constitute a nuisance per se or will be devoted to an unlawful use: The Court distinguished the present case from Philips vs. Municipal Mayor (G.R. No. L-9183). In Philips, the ordinance authorizing slot machines was held illegal for violating the Revised Administrative Code, which mandates municipal councils to prohibit gambling. However, in this case, Republic Act No. 183, the Charter of Pasay City, expressly authorizes its municipal board to regulate and fix license fees for slot machines. Since Pasay City has an ordinance (No. 106) regulating slot machines, and the owners paid the required fees and secured licenses, the operation of these machines is not illegal. The Court noted that a slot machine is not a gambling device per se, as it can be operated legally or illegally. The mere possession or operation for amusement, not for profit, does not constitute a crime. Therefore, the machines, when operated under a valid license, do not constitute a nuisance per se nor are they inherently devoted to unlawful use. On whether the operation of slot machines under a valid license is legal: The Court found that the operation of the slot machines in question was legal. This is because Pasay City, under its Charter (Republic Act No. 183, Section 16[n]), is expressly empowered to regulate and fix license fees for slot machines. The municipal board of Pasay City enacted Municipal Ordinance No. 106, which provides for such regulation and licensing. The owners of the fifty-one slot machines had complied with this ordinance by paying the prescribed fees and obtaining the corresponding licenses. Consequently, their operation of the machines was authorized and lawful, negating the claim that they constituted a nuisance or were intended for illegal activity.
Main Doctrine
Slot machines operated under a valid license issued by a city charter expressly authorizing such regulation are not illegal per se nor do they constitute a nuisance, provided the operation is in conformity with the ordinance.