Case Digest (G.R. No. 10263)
Facts:
United States v. Jaime Filart and Hilario Singson, G.R. No. 10263, March 13, 1915, the Supreme Court, Moreland, J., writing for the Court.
The plaintiff-appellee was the United States; the defendants-appellants were Jaime Filart and Hilario Singson. The Court of First Instance of Ilocos Sur convicted the defendants for violating Act No. 1757 (the Gambling Law), sentenced Filart to one month's imprisonment and a fine of P500, Singson to pay a fine of P500, ordered each to pay one-half of costs, and also ordered confiscation of the automobile that had been the prize and of P2,090, the proceeds from sale of the tickets.
The information charged that, on or before May 31, 1914 in Vigan, Ilocos Sur, the accused conspired to “play, exploit, and take part in a lottery or raffle of an automobile,” Filart being the owner, by distributing and selling 450 numbered tickets at P5 (and some at P3) each in various municipalities. The record shows the defendants agreed to sell 450 successively numbered tickets: 370 at P5 each and 80 at P3 each. The numbers (each on a separate paper) were placed in a box, mixed, and drawn one by one by a boy; a person present read each number aloud while Filart struck it from a list. It was agreed the last number drawn would win the automobile. The last number drawn belonged to Lucas Siping, who was publicly announced as winner. Both appellants and about 40 others were present at the drawing.
On appeal to the Supreme Court from the Court of First Instance (the case coming by direct appeal), the Court reviewed the evidence and the applicable law. The Supreme Court found the factual findings of the trial court supported conviction under Act No. 1757, §7, and affirmed the criminal penalties. However, the Court reversed the trial court’s order of confiscation of the automobile and the ticket-sale proceeds becau...(Pro-only)
Issues:
- Did the acts of Filart and Singson constitute a violation of Act No. 1757, §7, thereby sustaining their criminal convictions?
- Was the trial court’s order confiscating the automobile and the proceeds from the ticket sales valid, given the property was not befor...(Pro-only)
Ruling:
- (Pro-only)
Ratio:
- (Pro-only)
Doctrine:
- (Pro-only)