Case Digest (G.R. No. 205022)
Facts:
Carlito L. Mirando, Jr. v. Philippine Charity and Sweepstakes Office and Manolito Morato, G.R. No. 205022, July 03, 2019, the Supreme Court First Division, Jardeleza, J., writing for the Court.Petitioner Carlito L. Mirando, Jr. claimed to be the owner of the jackpot-winning lotto ticket for the March 9, 1996 PCSO draw (numbers 15-22-23-24-34-36). The PCSO announced a lone jackpot winner who purportedly purchased the winning ticket at the Zenco Footsteps, Libertad, Pasay City lotto outlet. Petitioner asserted that he actually purchased the ticket at the ACT Theater lotto outlet in Cubao on March 10, 1996; he said that the lotto machine's monitor displayed “Congratulations, you win the jackpot prize,” and that on March 18, 1996 he presented the ticket to respondent Manolito Morato, then PCSO Chairman, who asked him to sign the back of the ticket and later told him the prize had already been claimed. Petitioner later discovered the ticket had been altered.
On July 3, 1996 petitioner (through counsel) wrote to PCSO seeking release of the jackpot; in a July 17, 1996 reply Morato stated the winning ticket had been sold at the Zenco outlet and warned that pursuit of a false claim could lead to criminal charges. On September 22, 2000 petitioner filed a complaint for damages in the Quezon City RTC seeking payment of the jackpot, moral and exemplary damages, and attorney’s fees. Respondents denied petitioner was the winner, presented a computer verification from PCSO’s main computer center and end-of-day (EOD) reports showing the winner bought the ticket from the Zenco outlet, and denied any sale of the winning combination at the ACT Theater outlet; respondents also noted petitioner initially attached only a photocopy of the ticket to his July 1996 letter.
At trial petitioner offered eight witnesses (including himself); respondents presented two. The RTC, in a decision dated April 27, 2005, dismissed the complaint, finding petitioner’s claim incredible and concluding respondents established that the jackpot was sold and claimed at the Zenco outlet. The RTC relied on backup tapes and EOD reports from PCSO’s main computer center, the demonstration that winning-validation on lotto machines produces a prize claim ticket (which petitioner did not produce), proof that the Zenco outlet had a machine since 1994, and an NBI Questioned Document Division report concluding the ticket was tampered (mechanical erasure). The RTC concluded petitioner likely purchased a ticket after the draw and altered it.
Petitioner’s motion for reconsideration was denied; he appealed to the Court of Appeals. On January 31, 2012 the CA affirmed the RTC in toto (CA-G.R. CV No. 86399), adding that (among other things) the machine type evidence favored respondents (the DM Flipper machine tied to Zenco, not the DM 20E at ACT), petitioner failed to substantiate alleged NBI investigations or present the claimed NBI agents, many of petitioner’s witnesses testified to collateral matters, and alleged threats were unsupported by police reports. Petitioner’s motion for reconsideration at the CA was denied on November 15, 2012.
Petitioner filed a petition for review on certiorari under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court to the Supre...(Subscriber-Only)
Issues:
- Is the Court of Appeals’ resolution of which party has the preponderance of evidence a question of law properly reviewable in a Rule 45 petition?
- Did the RTC and the Court of Appeals err in finding that the preponderance of evidence established that petitioner was not the jackpot winner and in dismissing...(Subscriber-Only)
Ruling:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Ratio:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Doctrine:
- (Subscriber-Only)