G.R. No. 180512 - People vs. Cuasay

On November 16, 1922, the newspaper El Debate of Manila printed a full-page announcement.
The announcement detailed a "Grand Number Contest" offering prizes totaling P18,000.00.
The contest was designed in two parts:

The first contest involved guessing the total number of votes for winning candidates for Carnival Queen.
The second contest involved guessing the total number of votes that the crowned Carnival Queen would receive.

The advertisement furnished precise instructions and deadlines for participation—no later than December 23 for the first contest and on the day of the final canvass for the second.

Only subscribers to El Debate qualified to participate by paying in advance the subscription fee equivalent to a quarter, three-quarters, or a full year.
The number of coupons received (and subsequently the number of entries in each contest) varied with the length of the subscription:

One quarterly subscription entitled the subscriber to one coupon per contest.
Two or three quarterly subscriptions increased the number of coupons proportionately.
A full-year subscription yielded four coupons per contest.

A crucial requirement was that each guess (calculo) had to be accompanied by a brief explanatory statement detailing the basis for the estimate.
Daily publication of partial voting results by El Debate provided participants with some data to refine their guesses.

The advertisement noted that if the total prize fund were not matched by revenue from subscriptions, prizes would be reduced proportionately.

The Director of Posts, acting upon legal advice from the Attorney-General, refused to admit the issues of El Debate (which contained the contest advertisement) into the mails.
The refusal was based on Section 1954(a) of the Administrative Code which designated any written matter that promotes a lottery, gift enterprise, or similar scheme as "non-mailable".
El Debate, dissatisfied with this administrative ruling, instituted original proceedings in mandamus to challenge the decision and resolve the controversy with the Government.
The Government’s demurrer admitted the facts pleaded by El Debate and conceded the applicable law and the extent of the Director’s power.

Whether the decision of the Director of Posts in refusing to admit the contest advertisement into the mails was clearly erroneous.

The question centers on whether such an administrative decision falls within the Director’s latitude under the Administrative Code.

Whether the guessing contest constitutes a lottery, gift enterprise, or similar scheme “depending in whole or in part upon lot or chance” under the law.

This involves analyzing if all three essential elements—consideration, prize, and chance—are present in the scheme.

Whether the element of chance, even if accompanied by skill or calculation in the guessing process, is sufficient to render the contest as a lottery.

The argument submitted by counsel that intelligence and calculation reduce the chance component is weighed against legal precedents.

Whether the payment for subscription, when primarily aimed at winning a prize rather than for routine newspaper delivery, constitutes valuable consideration in a lottery or a gratuitous gift.