Title
People vs. Dionisio y Cruz
Case
G.R. No. L-25513
Decision Date
Mar 27, 1968
Rosauro Dionisio convicted for unauthorized horse race betting; one-month imprisonment upheld as constitutional, not cruel or unusual.

Case Summary (G.R. No. L-25513)

Relevant Facts

The appellant, Rosauro Dionisio, was charged with violating Republic Act No. 3063 for illicitly conducting betting activities related to a horse race. Specifically, on August 19, 1962, in Manila, he was found to be offering bets for the Special Daily Double Race at the Sta. Ana Racing Club without authorization from the Games and Amusements Board. He was apprehended with cash, a racing program, a list of bets, a ballpoint pen, and a booklet of betting receipts.

Legal Proceedings

Upon arraignment, Dionisio initially pleaded not guilty and waived his right to counsel. However, at a later point in the trial, he retracted his plea and pleaded guilty to the charges. The trial court convicted him and sentenced him to one month of imprisonment.

Applicable Law

The relevant statute in this case is Republic Act No. 3063, which amended previous provisions governing illegal gambling activities, specifically detailing the prohibition of unauthorized betting on horse races. Section 2 of the Act specifies that only licensed entities and their authorized agents may conduct betting, and violators face penalties including fines or imprisonment.

Issue Raised on Appeal

The central issue on appeal was whether the penal provisions applied to Dionisio, particularly the one-month imprisonment, constituted cruel and unusual punishment, thus violating Article III, Section 1, Clause 19 of the 1973 Philippine Constitution, which stipulates that excessive fines and cruel punishments shall not be imposed.

Court's Analysis

The court addressed the appellant’s arguments regarding the severity of the punishment. It clarified that neither fines nor imprisonment are in themselves indicative of cruel and unusual punishment. For a penalty to be considered inhumane or excessive, it must be "flagrantly and plainly oppressive" or wholly disproportionate to the nature of the offense.

The court cited precedent cases, indicating that mere harshness is insufficient for a punishment to be categorized as cruel or unusual. The severity of pena

...continue reading

Analyze Cases Smarter, Faster
Jur is a legal research platform serving the Philippines with case digests and jurisprudence resources. AI digests are study aids only—use responsibly.