G.R. No. 7260

THE UNITED STATES, PLAINTIFF AND APPELLEE, VS. EMILIO SANTOS REYES ET AL., DEFENDANTS. EMILIO SANTOS REYES, APPELLANT. D E C I S I O N

[ G.R. No. 7260. August 21, 1912 ] 23 Phil. 39

[ G.R. No. 7260. August 21, 1912 ]

THE UNITED STATES, PLAINTIFF AND APPELLEE, VS. EMILIO SANTOS REYES ET AL., DEFENDANTS. EMILIO SANTOS REYES, APPELLANT. D E C I S I O N

JOHNSON, J.:

These defendants were charged with a  violation of an Act, No. 1523,  to prohibit  the  importation,  sale, giving away, use and  possession of lottery  tickets and  lottery advertising matter,  alleged  to  have been  committed as follows:

“That on or about June 13, 1911, in the city of Manila, Philippine Islands, the said Emilio Santos Reyes, Dominga Trinidad and Teodoro Fidel  did willfully,  unlawfully and criminally have  in their possession, with the intention of selling, giving away  or using,  79 lottery tickets  of the Royal  Lottery of  Colombo, the  drawing in which should take place on July 25,1911; in violation of law.”

After hearing the evidence, the Honorable A. S. Crossfield, judge,  found each of  the  defendants guilty  of the crime  charged  and  sentenced the  defendant, Emilio S. Reyes, to pay a  fine of P500 and the costs of the  action, with subsidiary imprisonment in case of insolvency, and the defendants, Dominga Trinidad and Teodoro Fidel, each to be imprisoned for a period of fifteen days and each to pay one-third part of the costs.     From that  sentence the defendant, Emilio Santos Reyes, only appealed to this court, and made the following assignment of error:

“That the  defendant-appellant  had  been  convicted and sentenced for violation of Act No. 1523.”

From an examination  of the evidence certain facts are not only proved but admitted.  They are:       First. That the defendant, Emilio S. Reyes, was by occupation a printer.     Second. That during the months of  March, April, May, and June,  1911, he printed a large  number of lottery tickets, alleged  to be lottery tickets of the  Royal Lottery of Colombo.     Third. That a number of said lottery tickets were found in his private residence and others in his place of business.     Fourth. That he delivered  some of  said  tickets to the defendant, Dominga  Trinidad, on  or  about the  12th  of June, 1911,  and received therefor  a certain  sum of money.     Fifth. That the tickets which the defendant Reyes had delivered to the defendant Dominga Trinidad were later found in the possession of the said Dominga Trinidad and the other codefendant,  Teodoro Fidel.     The attorney for the appellant maintains in his  brief that said Act No. 1523 did not provide a punishment for the possession of lottery  tickets of the Philippine Islands or of lottery tickets made “in the Philippine Islands.  He further argues that the tickets were printed by the defendant Reyes for one Miguel Soler and that he had nothing to  do with  said lottery  tickets,  except  to print them under his contract with  Soler.   Soler  was  not called as a witness during the trial of the cause.  The defendant Reyes admitted that  he had printed the tickets;  that he was in possession of the same; that a part of them were found hidden in his house  and that he had  given  to  his codefendant, Dominga Trinidad,  a number of said tickets for a certain sum of money.     Section 3 of Act No. 1523 provides:

“It  shall be unlawful for  any person to sell, give away, use, or have possession of, with  intent to sell, give away, or use, any lottery  ticket or advertisement of any lottery, and possession of any such article shall be deemed presumptive evidence of intent to sell, give away, or use the same in the Philippine Islands, and said possession,  unless satisfactorily explained, shall be deemed  sufficient evidence to warrant conviction.”

In view of the fact that  the defendant, Emilio Santos Reyes, gave to his codefendant, Dominga Trinidad, certain of said  lottery tickets, and in view of the fact that he had hidden away in his private  residence certain of said lottery tickets, we are of the opinion that his  possession of the same  has not been satisfactorily explained,  and that his possession  of said  lottery tickets is in violation of said section 3.       Therefore the sentence of th£ lower court is hereby  affirmed, with costs.       Arellano, C. J., Mapa and Carson, JJ., concur.