G.R. No. 6941 - People vs. Hilario

The accused, Isidro Hilario, was charged in the municipal court of Manila alleging a violation of section 621 of the Revised Ordinances of the City of Manila.
The complaint stated that on or about March 17, 1911, Hilario, as owner or in charge of a premises and billiard hall on Pulung-Mayaman Street, Manila, voluntarily and illegally permitted the playing of a game called “nones y pares” for money and things of value.

The municipal court sustained a demurrer to the complaint on the ground that the facts did not constitute a public offense.
The Government appealed to the Court of First Instance, where the demurrer was again sustained with reference to the insufficiency of allegations to show that a public offense had been committed.

The lower court noted that “nones y pares” is analogous to American games like pool, “cocked hat,” and “skittle,” and depends on the player’s skill, judgment, and coordination of brain, eye, nerve, and muscle.
However, these admissions were not part of the complaint’s allegations and were introduced judicially by the court rather than by the prosecution.

The municipal board of Manila derived its power to regulate gambling from section 17 of Act No. 183 and later passed the Revised Ordinances which included section 621 et seq.
The board’s ordinance was influenced by existing Penal Code provisions and subsequent legislative enactments, particularly Act No. 1757, which defined “gambling” as the playing for money or other values on games whose results depend wholly or chiefly on chance.
The ordinance provisions (Sections 621 to 625) were crafted in reference to this limited statutory sense of gambling, distinguishing games of chance (prohibited) from games of skill (permitted).

Section 621 prohibited the maintenance of any table or device on premises for gaming or gambling purposes.
Subsequent sections (622 to 625) dealt with possession, frequenting gambling houses, penalties, and prohibiting specific games of chance like faro and roulette.
The ordinances were not intended to cover games that depend on skill, as evidenced by the legislative intent to restrict the prohibition to gambling in its statutory (chance-dependent) sense.

Whether the complaint sufficiently alleged that Hilario maintained or permitted gambling devices on his premises as required to constitute a public offense under section 621 of the Revised Ordinances.

Whether the game “nones y pares” qualifies as a gambling game under the ordinance, particularly considering the statutory distinction between games of chance and games of skill.
Whether the judicial admissions regarding the nature of the game (i.e., a game of skill) should influence the ruling when such admissions were not part of the complaint’s allegations.