Case Digest (G.R. No. L-12891)
Facts:
The United States v. Filomeno Estapia et al., G.R. No. 12891. October 19, 1917, the Supreme Court En Banc, Carson, J., writing for the Court. The plaintiff was the United States and the defendants were Filomeno Estapia et al., prosecuted for violation of section 1 of Act No. 480 (punishing maintenance of cockpits and attending cockfights in cockpits on unlicensed days).The factual history presented at trial showed that the defendants participated in, or watched, an ihaway (a form of cockfight in which the losing cock is divided among the owners) beneath a buri palm in a grove near a recently constructed house. The police surprised the group soon after the fight; the defendants and about eight to ten onlookers were found standing in a ring at the spot where the fight had just occurred. There was no evidence that the grove had been used for cockfighting previously, that more than one fight occurred that day, or that any wager was made other than the customary division of the losing bird.
On proof of these facts the trial court convicted the defendants of violating section 1 of Act No. 480 and sentenced each to a fine of P25 and costs. The defendants appealed to the Supreme Court seeking reversal of the conviction; the appeal resulted in the present decision. The Court considered statutory construction, dictionary defi...(Subscriber-Only)
Issues:
- Did the evidence adduced at trial suffice to sustain convictions under section 1 of Act No. 480 for engaging in or attending cockfighting in a cockpit?
- Does the term "cockpit" in section 1 of Act No. 480 include any place where a cockfight occurs (e.g., an open grove or under a tree), or is it limited to a place specially prepared, adapte...(Subscriber-Only)
Ruling:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Ratio:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Doctrine:
- (Subscriber-Only)