G.R. No. L-25513 - People vs. Dionisio y Cruz

The appellant, Rosauro Dionisio y Cruz, was charged under Republic Act No. 3063, which amends section 2 of R.A. 954.
The amended section prohibits any unauthorized person from offering, taking, or arranging bets on any horse race, except those duly authorized by the Games and Amusements Board on premises licensed for such activity.
The statute imposes a penalty of a fine ranging from one thousand to two thousand pesos, or imprisonment for one month to six months, or both.

On or about August 19, 1962, in Manila, the appellant was involved in betting activities during a Special Daily Double Race at the Sta. Ana Racing Club in Makati.
Evidence found on the appellant included cash money amounting to P8.50, a Nueva Era Racing Program (dated August 19, 1962), a list of bets, a ballpen, and a Daily Double receipt booklet.
The appellant was charged in a case filed by the Assistant City Fiscal, alleging that he was not authorized to conduct horse race betting.
During arraignment, the appellant waived his right to counsel and pleaded not guilty; however, at trial, he voluntarily retracted his plea to enter a guilty plea, thereby implicating him further.
The Court a quo found him guilty beyond reasonable doubt and sentenced him to one month’s imprisonment.
An appeal bond was filed and approved, and the appeal was duly taken from the decision of the Court of First Instance of Manila.

The appellant challenged his conviction, specifically contesting the penalty imposed for the offense.
The appeal was reviewed by a higher court, with the case cited as 131 Phil. 408 (G.R. No. L-25513).
The facts, as detailed in the appellant’s brief and agreed upon by the Solicitor General, formed the basis of the appellate review.

The appellant argued that the penalty prescribed for the violation of R.A. 3063 constitutes a violation of the constitutional provision which states that "excessive fines shall not be imposed nor cruel and unusual punishment inflicted." (Art. III, Sec. 1, clause 19, of the Constitution).
The contention centered on whether the fine and imprisonment provided by the statute were excessively severe in relation to the offense committed.
The issue further questioned if the statutory punishment, though severe, could be deemed inherently cruel and unusual or if it simply fell within the bounds of a legitimate penal measure.