Title
Mirando, Jr. vs. Philippine Charity Sweepstakes Office
Case
G.R. No. 205022
Decision Date
Jul 3, 2019
A man claimed a lottery jackpot with a tampered ticket, alleging it was the winning one, but courts ruled against him, citing insufficient evidence and tampering.
lottery ticket
evidence
court ruling

Case Summary (G.R. No. 205022)

Factual Background

Petitioner maintained that he purchased the winning ticket on March 10, 1996 at the ACT Theater lotto outlet in Cubao, Quezon City. He testified that after he saw the winning numbers in a newspaper, he proceeded immediately to the ACT Theater outlet, where a lady in the lotto booth allegedly validated the ticket in the lotto machine. Petitioner said that the words “Congratulations, you win the jackpot prize” appeared on the monitor screen.

Petitioner further narrated that since PCSO was closed because it was a Sunday, he did not claim the prize immediately. He then allegedly went to Baliuag, Bulacan where he was working and later travelled to Aurora to inform his family. After about a week, on March 18, 1996, petitioner claimed that he went to PCSO and met Morato together with his kumpare to present his ticket for prize claiming. Petitioner alleged that Morato asked him to sign the back of the ticket, after which Morato entered his office with the ticket. Petitioner said that after about an hour, Morato told him that the prize could no longer be claimed because it was already claimed by someone else. Petitioner then left and later discovered that his ticket was altered.

In response to PCSO’s position, petitioner claimed he sought relief by correspondence. On July 3, 1996, through Atty. Renan Castillo, he wrote a letter to PCSO requesting the release of the jackpot prize. Morato replied on July 17, 1996, stating that the sole winning ticket had been sold at the Zenco outlet and that the prize had already been claimed, and warning petitioner of possible attempted estafa through falsification of government security if he pursued a false claim. Petitioner later filed a complaint for damages on September 22, 2000.

Respondents’ Refusal and Their Evidentiary Position

Respondents denied that petitioner was a bona fide holder of the winning ticket. They asserted that a computer verification at PCSO’s main computer center showed that the winning ticket was sold to a lone winner from Batangas, who purchased at the Zenco outlet. Respondents likewise asserted that no bet or purchase using the winning numbers for the March 9, 1996 draw was ever made at the ACT Theater outlet.

Respondents also controverted petitioner’s claim about his alleged visit to PCSO on March 18, 1996. They maintained that petitioner first represented himself as the winner only through his July 3, 1996 letter and that the supposed original ticket was not presented, as only a photocopy was attached to the letter. They further argued that petitioner’s timing was inconsistent with human behavior. They emphasized that petitioner, allegedly a poor person, did not promptly present the original ticket and instead waited four months before seeking counsel to write PCSO, and after receiving Morato’s warning in July 1996, petitioner still waited more than four years before suing.

At trial, petitioner presented eight witnesses, including himself, while respondents presented two witnesses.

RTC Proceedings and Ruling

On April 27, 2005, the RTC dismissed petitioner’s complaint for damages for lack of legal and factual bases. The RTC explained that after evaluating the evidence, it became morally convinced that petitioner’s claim lacked basis. First, the RTC found that respondents established that the winner of the March 9, 1996 draw was not petitioner. It relied on backup tapes from PCSO’s main computer center, and on end-of-day reports showing that the winning ticket was purchased from the Zenco outlet and that the jackpot prize had already been claimed.

Second, the RTC found that whether petitioner’s lotto machine was a particular type did not support his story because, according to respondents’ proof, the words “Congratulations, you win the jackpot prize” did not appear on the monitor screen. The RTC noted that once a winning ticket was inserted into the machine, a prize claim ticket would issue, and petitioner failed to present such prize claim ticket.

Third, the RTC found that respondents proved that a lotto machine had already been installed at the Zenco outlet as early as 1994, rebutting petitioner’s claim that the outlet was not yet operational at the time of the draw.

The RTC then weighed petitioner’s evidence and found it unsatisfactory. It noted the inconsistency between petitioner’s claimed validation on March 10, 1996 and his alleged delay until March 18, 1996 before going to PCSO. It also considered the believability of petitioner’s behavior in light of his claim that he was poor. The RTC further discussed the documentary evidence. It noted that the National Bureau of Investigation (NBI) Questioned Document Division reported that petitioner’s lotto ticket was tampered. Petitioner attributed the tampering to Morato. The RTC reasoned that if Morato or his subordinates had tampered with the ticket and had no intention to honor it, petitioner would not have been asked to sign it in the first place. The RTC ultimately concluded that petitioner was the one who tampered with the ticket, reasoning that petitioner bought the ticket after the draw, placed a bet after the winning combination was announced, erased the date and security code, and then attempted to claim the prize.

Petitioner sought reconsideration, but the RTC denied it. Petitioner then appealed to the CA.

CA Proceedings and Affirmance

On January 31, 2012, the CA affirmed the RTC’s decision in toto. It independently anchored its findings on multiple observations.

First, the CA noted that petitioner’s witness confirmed that the winning lotto ticket came from the DM Flipper type machine, which the CA treated as the kind installed at the Zenco outlet, and not the DM 20E machine installed at the ACT Theater outlet.

Second, the CA found that when a demonstration was conducted in open court showing how a lotto machine validates a winning ticket, petitioner raised no objections, manifestations, or irregularities.

Third, the CA described that petitioner’s witnesses largely testified on observations and opinions about petitioner’s demeanor and Morato’s alleged denial of the claim, but those testimonies concerned collateral matters rather than the main issue of who actually won the lottery drawn on March 9, 1996.

Fourth, the CA held that petitioner failed to prove his alleged visit to the two lotto outlets with NBI agents. Petitioner alleged that in December 1996 he and three NBI agents interviewed the ACT Theater outlet manager, who purportedly affirmed the origin of the winning ticket but declined to sign an affidavit because Morato might get angry. Petitioner also claimed that they went to the Zenco outlet next and spoke to Tony Yap, who allegedly denied that the winning ticket originated from that outlet, asserting it began operations only on April 28, 1996. The CA found these allegations bare, faulting petitioner for failing to identify or present the NBI agents and for failing to present an incident report or written statement documenting the alleged investigation.

Fifth, the CA noted that petitioner’s witnesses claimed their lives were threatened due to their affiliation with petitioner, but they presented no police reports, police blotters, or proof that the alleged incidents occurred.

Sixth, the CA found that petitioner’s kumpare, alleged to have gone with him to PCSO on March 18, 1996, did not execute any statement to confirm the meeting with Morato. The CA found that petitioner alleged prejudice but failed to prove any.

The CA therefore concluded that there were no strong and valid reasons to disturb the RTC’s findings. Petitioner’s motion for reconsideration was denied.

Issues Raised in the Supreme Court and Applicable Review Standard

Petitioner came before the Supreme Court through a petition for review on certiorari under Rule 45. He asked the Court to reconsider the consistent rulings of the CA and the RTC that the preponderance of evidence lay with respondents on the issue of whether petitioner was the true jackpot winner of the March 9, 1996 draw.

Petitioner assigned two errors. First, he alleged that the CA erred in failing to give full weight to the credibility, materiality, relevance, corroborativeness, and cohesiveness of his testimonial and documentary evidence, which he asserted far outweighed respondents’ evidence. Second, he argued that the CA failed to consider applicable laws, provisions of the Rules of Court, and jurisprudence he invoked in the formal offer and opposition of evidence.

The Court applied the settled principle that a Rule 45 petition concerns questions of law, not questions of fact. The Court distinguished questions of law from questions of fact, and emphasized that where the resolution necessarily requires calibration of the whole evidence, including credibility and the relative weight of competing evidence, the inquiry is factual. The Court held that determining whether petitioner proved by the preponderance of evidence that he was the jackpot winner required

...continue reading

Analyze Cases Smarter, Faster
Jur helps you analyze cases smarter to comprehend faster, building context before diving into full texts. AI-powered analysis, always verify critical details.

About Privacy Terms