People v. Hilario
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: The accused, Isidro Hilario, was charged in the municipal court of Manila with a violation of Section 621 of the Revised Ordinances of the City of Manila for allegedly permitting the playing of a game called "nones y pares" for money and things of value in his billiard hall. Procedural History: A demurrer to the complaint was sustained by the municipal court. The Government appealed to the Court of First Instance, where a demurrer was again sustained on the ground that the facts stated in the complaint did not constitute a public offense. The Government appealed this order to the Supreme Court. The Petition: The Government appealed the order of the Court of First Instance sustaining the demurrer, arguing that the facts alleged in the complaint constituted a violation of Section 621 of the Revised Ordinances.
Issue(s)
Whether the complaint sufficiently alleges facts constituting a public offense under Section 621 of the Revised Ordinances of Manila. Whether the game "nones y pares," as described, falls within the prohibition of Section 621 of the Revised Ordinances of Manila, considering the distinction between games of skill and games of chance.
Ruling
The Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of the Court of First Instance, sustaining the demurrer and dismissing the case. The Court held that the complaint did not allege facts sufficient to constitute a public offense.
Ratio Decidendi
On the sufficiency of the complaint and the nature of "nones y pares": The Court held that Section 621 of the Revised Ordinances of Manila, along with related sections and in light of general laws on gambling, was intended to prohibit only games of chance or hazard. The complaint alleged that the accused permitted the playing of "nones y pares" for money, but it did not allege that this game was a gambling game or a game of chance. The Court emphasized that it must confine itself strictly to the allegations in the complaint when ruling on a demurrer. The lower court erred in considering admissions and judicially noticing that "nones y pares" was a game of skill, as these were not part of the complaint and the nature of the game was not so universally known as to be judicially noticed without dispute. The Court reiterated that the statutory definition of gambling, as understood in the Philippines, excludes games where the result depends wholly or chiefly upon skill. On the interpretation of Section 621 of the Revised Ordinances: The Court analyzed Section 621 et seq. of the Revised Ordinances and concluded that the Municipal Board, in enacting these provisions, was dealing with gambling in its statutory sense and paraphernalia used for such purposes. The ordinance prohibits the setting up, keeping, or maintaining of any table or other instrument or device for the purpose of gaming or gambling, or with which money or other things of value shall be played for. However, the Court found that the complaint did not allege that "nones y pares" was a gambling game. Therefore, even if the game involved playing for money, if it was a game of skill, it would not fall under the prohibition of the ordinance as interpreted in conjunction with the general laws on gambling, which distinguish between games of skill and games of chance. The Court noted that Act No. 1757, which defined gambling, still excluded games depending wholly or chiefly upon skill.
Main Doctrine
A complaint alleging the keeping of a place where a game of skill is played for money does not constitute a public offense under Section 621 of the Revised Ordinances of Manila, as the ordinance, in conjunction with general laws, pertains only to games of chance or hazard.