Manila
SECOND DIVISION
G.R. No. 248583, February 03, 2025
ROBERT PLAN Y BELONCIO AND MARK OLIVER D. ENOLVA, PETITIONERS,
vs.
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, RESPONDENT.
D E C I S I O N
LAZARO-JAVIER, J.:
The Case
This Petition for Review on Certiorari1 assails the following dispositions of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CR No. 42211:
1. Decision2 dated March 27, 2019 affirming the conviction of petitioners Robert Plan y Beloncio (Plan) and Mark Oliver Enolva (Enolva) for illegal gambling under Presidential Decree No. 1602; and
2. Resolution3 dated July 23, 2019 denying Plan and Enolva's Motion for Reconsideration.
Antecedents
The Charge
In Criminal Case No. M-QZN-17-03369-C,4 Plan and Enolva were charged with illegal gambling under Presidential Decree No. 1602, viz.:
That on or about the 31st day of March 2017, in Quezon City, Philippines, the above-named accused, conspiring, confederating with and mutually helping one another, did then and there willfully, unlawfully and knowingly, without any authority of law, take active and in part in the game of "CARA y CRUZ," a game of chance, wherein wagers consisting of money, articles of value or representative of value are at stake or made.
CONTRARY TO LAW.5
On arraignment, both Plan and Enolva pleaded not guilty.6
Version of the Prosecution
On March 31, 2017, around 11:30 p.m., Police Officer I Stanley De Guzman (PO1 De Guzman), Police Officer I Sammy Putan (PO1 Putan), Police Officer III (PO3) Roland Aumentado, and PO3 Espartacus Pareja of the Quezon City Police District conducted Oplan Galugad at Barangay San Roque, Quezon City after their Station Commander received information from a concerned citizen regarding alleged illegal gambling activities in the area.7
When the team reached the place, the police officers saw a group of men huddling over a game of cara y cruz. The police officers approached and caught petitioners in the act of placing their bets. PO1 De Guzman grabbed the money on the pavement totaling PHP 3,750.00.8 Thereafter, the police officers frisked Plan and Enolva and recovered two plastic sachets containing white crystalline substance.9
Version of the Defense
Plan and Enolva interposed denial. Enolva asserted that while he was traversing Aurora Boulevard on his way home to Bulacan, something went wrong with his motorcycle. He stopped and messaged Plan asking if he had tools for repair. After receiving Plan's affirmative response, he went to Plan's house in Quezon City.10
While they were working on the motorcycle, armed men in civilian clothes suddenly barged into the compound where they were and pointed guns at them. Plan corroborated Enolva's testimony.11
Ruling of the Metropolitan Trial Court
By Decision12 dated January 12, 2018, the Metropolitan Trial Court (MeTC) found Plan and Enolva guilty of illegal gambling, viz.:
WHEREFORE, premises considered, judgment is hereby rendered CONVICTING accuseds [sic] Robert Plan y Beloncio and Mark Oliver y Enolva [sic] for [v]iolation of Presidential Decree No. 1602, in Criminal Case No. 17-03369.
Accordingly, they are sentenced to suffer imprisonment of two (2) years eleven (11) months and eleven (11) days of prision correccional.
SO ORDERED.13 (Emphasis in the original)
The MeTC found that the prosecution established all the elements of illegal gambling. PO1 De Guzman and PO1 Putan testified that Plan and Enolva placed bets on a game of cara y cruz.14 Neither witness had improper motive to falsely testify against Plan and Enolva. Hence, their testimonies are worthy of full faith and credit.15
Ruling of the Regional Trial Court
By Joint Decision16 dated June 11, 2018, the Regional Trial Court (RTC) affirmed the conviction of Plan and Enolva but modified the penalty. It held that since Republic Act No. 9287 imposes a penalty favorable to both Plan and Enolva, the length of their imprisonment should be reduced to 30 days.17
Ruling of the Court of Appeals
By Decision18 dated March 27, 2019, the Court of Appeals affirmed in full. It found no reason to depart from the doctrine that the trial court's assessment of witnesses' credibility is entitled to great weight and respect absent any showing of glaring errors.19 Plan and Enolva's Motion for Reconsideration was denied under Resolution20 dated July 23, 2019.
Proceedings before the Court
Plan and Enolva now plead anew their purported innocence and pray that a verdict of acquittal be rendered in their favor. They assert that the prosecution witnesses could not categorically describe their participation in the game of cara y cruz.21 Though police officers testified that they saw petitioners "in a huddle position actually engaged in a game of [cara y cruz]"22 they failed to show that petitioners actually placed bets thereon. They only saw the pot money on the floor and "merely assumed that [petitioners] placed a part thereof as bets."23
In compliance with the Court's Resolution24 dated February 3, 2020, the Office of the Solicitor General (OSG) filed its Comment.25 It maintains that the prosecution proved the illegal gambling charge beyond reasonable doubt. Police officers testified that petitioners were playing cara y cruz by putting money on the pavement.26 More important, Presidential Decree No. 1602 does not require that the amount and denomination of the money wagered be proven to hold an accused liable.27
Our Ruling
We acquit.
Generally, a petition for review under Rule 45 is limited to questions of law.28 The Court is not a trier of facts, which undertakes the re-examination and re-assessment of the evidence presented during trial.29 Appreciation and resolution of factual issues are functions of the trial court, whose findings are accorded great respect, if not finality, especially when affirmed by the Court of Appeals.30 This rule nonetheless admits of several exceptions, such as:
(a) When the findings are grounded entirely on speculation, surmises, or conjectures;
(b) When the inference made ts manifestly mistaken, absurd, or impossible;
(c) When there is grave abuse of discretion;
(d) When the judgment is based on a misapprehension of facts;
(e) When the findings of facts are conflicting;
(f) When in making its findings the [Court of Appeals] went beyond the issues of the case, or its findings are contrary to the admissions of both the appellant and the appellee;
(g) When the [Court of Appeal's] findings are contrary to those by the trial court;
(h) When the findings are conclusions without citation of specific evidence on which they are based;
(i) When the facts set forth in the petition as well as in the petitioner's main and reply briefs are not disputed by the respondent;
(j) When the findings of fact are premised on the supposed absence of evidence and contradicted by the evidence on record; or
(k) When the [Court of Appeals] manifestly overlooked certain relevant facts not disputed by the parties, which if properly considered, would justify a different conclusion.31 (Emphasis supplied)
The Court finds that the 1st, 4th, 8th, and 11th exceptions are present here. As such, the Court is not precluded from reviewing the factual findings of the lower courts because their decisions contain conclusions that are bereft of evidentiary support or factual basis.32 In particular, the lower courts found petitioners guilty of illegal gambling despite the prosecution's failure to establish their actual participation in a game of cara y cruz.
Playing cara y cruz is punishable under Presidential Decree No. 1602 which provides:
Section 1. Penalties.(awÞhi( The following penalties are hereby imposed:
(a) The penalty of prison correccional in its medium period [or] a fine ranging from one thousand to six thousand pesos, and in case of recidivism, the penalty of prision mayor in its medium period or a fine ranging from five thousand to ten thousand pesos shall be imposed upon:
1. Any person other than those referred to in the succeeding sub-sections who in any manner, shall directly or indirectly take part in any illegal or unauthorized activities or games of cockfighting, jueteng, jai alai or horse racing to include bookie operations and game fixing, numbers, bingo and other forms of lotteries; cara y cruz, pompiang and the like; 7-11 and any game using dice; black jack, lucky nine, poker and its derivatives, monte, baccarat, cuajao, pangguingue and other card games; paik que, high and low, mahjong, domino and other games using plastic tiles and the like; slot machines, roulette, pinball and other mechanical contraptions and devices; dog racing, boat racing, car racing and other forms of races, basketball, boxing, volleyball, bowling, pingpong and other forms of individual or team contests to include game fixing, point shaving and other machinations; banking or percentage game, or any other game scheme, whether upon chance or skill, wherein wagers consisting of money, articles of value or representative of value are at stake or made[.] (Emphasis supplied)
The phrase "[d]irectly or indirectly take part" does not have a precise definition in law or in jurisprudence. Nevertheless, the arresting officers must witness the accused directly or indirectly participating in the game to be found guilty of the illegal gambling. For a successful prosecution of illegal gambling, the arresting officers must not only have seen the suspected bettors place their bets. They must testify with certainty on the details of the entire gambling operation, including but not limited to the alleged game being played, the identification of the person administering the bets as well as the identification of the bettors, and the denomination of money being bet. Any vagueness on the details clouds the offense with reasonable doubt.
Here, petitioners claim that the police officers' failure to state with accuracy the actual denomination of their alleged bets amounts to reasonable doubt.33
We agree.
Although police officers testified that petitioners were at the locus criminis, they were unable to testify on the actual denomination of the bets that each of the petitioners supposedly made. PO1 De Guzman testified:
Q: [W]hat [else] were you able to immediately recover[] from accused Robert Plan before [] frisking him?
A: Ma'am wala na po.
Q: You were not able to recover anything from him?
A: Yung bet money sa lapag nalang [sic].
Q: Where [was] the bet money placed?
A: Sa gitna po nila kasi in a huddle position po sila.34
On cross-examination, he further stated:
Q: Were you the one who recovered the bet money?
A: Yes, sir.
Q: And where did you recover the bet money?
A: Sa may lapag lang sir.
Q: How much did you recover Mr. Witness?
A: [PHP 3,750.00 in different denomination[s].
Q: How did you know that these are the money of the accused in this case?
A: More or less 2 to 3 meters, kita na po namin yung pagtatayo [sic], betting nila.
. . . .
Q: Did you actually see Robert Plan put the money on the pavement?
A: Nagbebet po sila. In a huddle position.
. . . .
Q: And what bill [did Plan put on the pavement]?
A: Tabi tabi kasi sila sir eh. Paglagay po kasi ng...
Q: So you are not sure Mr. Witness of what denomination?
A: Opo[.] [K]asi split seconds lang po yung pag[lapag].35
As for Enolva's involvement, PO1 Putan testified:
Q: Sinabi mo nakita mo na nagbe-bet. Anong binebet niya?
A: Pera po.
Q: Anong pera Mr. Witness?
A: Nakalagay po dun sa may sahig po.
Q: Anong denomination ng pera Mr. Witness?
A: Hindi na po namin maano ma'am eh kasi marami na pong nakalagay na pera sa sahig.
Q: Sinabi mo nakita mo siyang nagtataya. Kung nakita mo siyang nagtataya makikita mo Mr. Witness kung ano ang tinataya niya at sinabi mo ito ay pera pero hindi mo natatandaan kung anong kulay itong pera na ito.
A: Yes po ma'am.
Q: Pero malapit ka?
A: Yes po.
Q: [Pero] yung pera, [hindi mo nakita] kung anong denomination[?]
A: Nakita ko po yung pera ma'am, yung tinaya pero hindi ko po alam kung magkano po.36
Considering the proximity of the arresting officers to the locus criminis in this case, i.e., two to three meters away, their failure to provide details regarding the illegal gambling incident militates against their credibility. Indeed, it is interesting that they claimed to have witnessed petitioners placing money bets yet were unable to answer when asked for further details. They even clearly stated that the money bets were placed on the floor. But if they had really seen the same, then it is inconceivable why they could not identify any denomination of the same, which would have been readily identifiable based on the color of the bills.
Since the evidence on record fails to establish the extent of petitioners actual participation in the cara y cruz game, We reckon with the exhortation in Macayan v. People:37
In our criminal justice system, the overriding consideration is not whether the court doubts the innocence of the accused, but whether it entertains a reasonable doubt as to their guilt. Where there is no moral certainty as to their guilt, they must be acquitted even though their innocence may be questionable. The constitutional right to be presumed innocent until proven guilty can be overthrown only by proof beyond reasonable doubt.38
So must it be.
ACCORDINGLY, the Petition is GRANTED. The Decision dated March 27, 2019 and Resolution dated July 23, 2019 of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CR No. 42211 are SET ASIDE. Petitioners Robert Plan y Beloncio and Mark Oliver D. Enolva are ACQUITTED of violation of Presidential Decree No. 1602. They are ORDERED IMMEDIATELY RELEASED from detention unless they are being lawfully held for other lawful cause.
Let entry of judgment be issued immediately.
Let a copy of this Decision be furnished to the Director General of the Bureau of Corrections, for immediate implementation. The Director General is ordered to REPORT to this Court within five days from receipt of the Decision on the action taken.
SO ORDERED.
M. Lopez, J. Lopez, and Kho, Jr., JJ., concur.
Leonen, SAJ. (Chairperson), see concurring opinion.
Footnotes
1 Rollo, pp. 11-24.
2 Id. at 30-37. Penned by Associate Justice Danton Q. Bueser with the concurrence of Associate Justices Mariflor P. Punzalan Castillo and Rafael Antonio M. Santos, Sixth Division, Court of Appeals, Manila.
3 Id. at 39-40. Penned by Associate Justice Danton Q. Bueser with the concurrence of Associate Justices Mariflor P. Punzalan Castillo and Rafael Antonio M. Santos, Former Sixth Division, Court of Appeals, Manila.
4 Id. at 62, 68.
5 Id.
6 Id. at 31.
7 Id. at 31, 62-63.
8 Id. at 31, 63.
9 Id.
10 Id.
11 Id.
12 Id. at 62-67. By Presiding Judge Maria Ella Cecilia D. Dumlao-Escalante.
13 Id. at 67.
14 Id. at 65.
15 Id. at 66.
16 Id. at 56-61. By Presiding Judge Madonna C. Echiverri.
17 Id. at 61.
18 Id. at 30-37.
19 Id. at 33.
20 Id. at 39-40.
21 Id. at 18.
22 Id.
23 Id. at 20.
24 Rollo, p. 199.
25 Id. at 213-219. By Assistant Solicitor General Eric Remegio O. Panga and Associate Solicitor Victor Napoleon D. Valeriano.
26 Id. at 217.
27 Id. at 217-218.
28 RULES OF COURT, Rule 45, Sec. 1.
29 Cacho v. Manahan, 823 Phil. 1011, 1021 (2018) [Per J. Martires, Third Division], citing Maglana Rice and Corn Mill, Inc. v. Tan, 673 Phil. 532, 539 (2011) [Per J. Bersamin, First Division].
30 Abalos v. Heirs of Torio, 618 Phil. 691 (2011) [Per J. Peralta, Fourth Division]; Chanelay Development Corporation v. GSIS, 906 Phil. 620, 637 (2021) [Per J. Lazaro-Javier, Second Division].
31 Abalos v. Heirs of Torio, 678 Phil. 691, 699-700 (2011) [Per J. Peralta, Fourth Division]; citing Sps. Andrada v. Pilhino Sales Corporation, 659 Phil. 70, 78-79 (2011) [Per J. Bersamin, Third Division].
32 See Republic v. Ong, 688 Phil. 136, 154 (2012) [Per J. Del Castillo, First Division].
33 Rollo, p. 21.
34 TSN, PO1 Stanley De Guzman, July 11, 2017, pp. 7-8; rollo, pp. 76-77.
35 TSN, PO1 Stanley De Guzman, July 11, 2017, pp. 17-18; rollo, pp. 86-87.
36 TSN, PO1 Sammy Putan, November 21, 2017, pp. 10-12; rollo, pp. 104-106.
37 756 Phil. 202 (2015) [Per J. Leonen, Second Division].
38 Id. at 228.
The Lawphil Project - Arellano Law Foundation
