THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, PLAINTIFF AND APPELLEE, VS. GREGORIO DE GOROSTIZA AND ARSENIO TICZON, DEFENDANTS AND APPELLANTS.

PERFECTO, J.:

The prosecution presented evidence to the effect that at about 6 o’clock in
the afternoon of October 21, 1942, three policemen of the vice squad of the City
of San Pablo, named Quirico Azucena, Domingo Lacatan and Teofilo Cruz went to
barrio Concepcion upon tip that jueteng was to be played there. On
reaching near the precise place, they made a semicircle around a shed, which had
no walls, and saw persons going inside one after another and handling Gregoz-io
de Gorostiza small bundles of paper. Arsenio Ticzon was the last to come. The
policemen, who were watching what was going on inside the shed where the accused
and other persons were gathered, upon noticing that they were about to play
jueteng, raided the place. The group of persons scampered away. Leaving
on the table the bag Exhibit F, Gorostiza ran to an adjoining house. Cruz picked
up the bag and followed Gorostiza who, when called upon to surrender, gave
himself up. As Ticzon was intending to run away, he was grabbed by Azucena.
Lacatan seized from the grip of Ticzon’s left hand two pieces of paper Exhibits
A-I and A-2. Lacatan found and on the ground four envelopes containing six
rolled white paper Exhibit A and small bundles of paper contained in envelopes
and identified as Exhibits B, B-1, B-2, C, C-1, C-2, D, D-1, D-2, D-3, E, E-1,
E-2, and E-3. Gorostiza and Ticzon were taken to the police headquarters, where
they were investigated by Assistant Chief of Police Vicente Carikitan. During
the investigation, Cruz opened, in the presence of Gorostiza, the bag Exhibit F
and took therefrom the pieces of paper Exhibit F-1, envelopes Exhibits F-2 to
F-9, containing white sheets of rolled pad paper, and bills of different
denominations amounting to P4.43 marked as Exhibit G.

The pieces of paper Exhibits A-1 and A-2, found in Ticzon’s possession, and
F-1 found in the bag left by Gorostiza when he ran away, contained, written
thereon, jueteng numbers bet on and the amounts of bets in cen-tavos,
as explained by policemen Lacatan and Cruz, who testified as having expert
knowledge of £he game of jue-tenrj. The defense did not attempt to contradict
the testimony of the two policemen., as to the nature of the three exhibits1. At
any rate, the “attempt would have been fruitless because in Exhibit H, signed’
by Gorostiza, he recognized the presence of one maong sack, referring to bag
Exhibit F, the cash P4.43,’ and “jueteng parapher-nalias”; and in
Exhibit I, signed by Ticzon, the latter admitted the presence of
“jueteng paraphernalias” as evidence. Lastly, Gorostiza and Ticzon
jointly admitted in Exhibit J that, when they were arrested, policemen Azucena,
Lacatan and Cruz found in their possession pieces of paper containing
jueteng numbers and that at the time they were in search of
jueteng collectors to make effective the bets they made in the pieces
of paper referred to, in view of their strong hunch in favor of the numbers
written in said pieces of paper, although they were unable to make the bets
effective because of their arrest. The statement Exhibit J is worded as
follows:

“Kaming mga nakalagda sa ibaba nito, ay may mga sapat na gulang naninira sa
Lunsod nang San Pablo, dito sa hinaharap na kasulatan ay malaya naming
sinasaysay, pinagtitibay at pinanunum-paan itong mga sumusunod:

“Na,
noong ika 21 nang Octubre, 1942, kami ay nahuli nang mga policiang si Azucena,
Lacatan at Cruz mga policia nang Lunsod nang San Pablo nang tig-kakapirasong
papel na may sulat nang numero nang Jueteng dahil sa mga sandaling kami
ay mahuli nang nabangit na mga policia ay kasalukuyan kami ay naghahanap ng
cobrador ng Jueteng na matatayaan, sapagkat ang mga numerong natatala
sa nabangit na mga papeL na nahuli sa amin ay mahihigpit naming mga ‘anuncio.’
Hinde na nga namin naitaya ang aming mga anunciong ito dahil sa kami ay nadakip
na iiga nang mga policia at dinala kami sa kanilang himpilan.

“Ito ang lubos namin mapapatunayan at dahil dito ay aming nilagdaan ngayon
ika 25 nang buan nang Octubre, 1942, sa Lunsod ng San Pablo, Kapuluan
Filipinas.”

The defense tried to establish that the two defendants did not participate,
in the afternoon and place in question, in a game of jueteng either as
collector or cashier, each accused offering: explanations as to their respective
presence at the place of their arrest. The lower court made, in its decision, an
ample analysis and discussion of the evidence presented both by the prosecution
and the defense, and a perusal and study of the records of this case convince us
that the conclusions of fact arrived at by the lower court are substantially
correct and are supported by the evidence. Appellants have failed to show us
sufficient grounds why we should disturb the conclusions of fact of the lower
court.

Appellant Ticzon alleges that he signed Exhibit J because he was promised to
be prosecuted only as a mere jueteng bettor; while Gorostiza, attacked
the admissibility of said exhibit because the chief of police “told me to sign
it so that I will not be molested anymore, and as I have never been accused
before during my life time I signed it,” pointing out that neither the chief of
police nor policemen Lacatan and Cruz, instrumental witnesses of Exhibit J,
refuted him on the alleged promise. But there are circumstances which make us
refrain from accepting appellants’ theories. When Exhibit J was signed by
appellants on October 25, 1942, they were not under arrest because, as they
themselves had testified, they were allowed to go home after they had signed
Exhibits H and I on October 21, 1942, the date of their arrest. Exhibit J is
written in Tagalog, the language of the locality. Before signing it, Gorostiza
read it. Ticzon pretended not to know how to read and write, a pretension belied
by his signatures in Exhibits I and J which show the penmanship of a person who
ought to know how to read and write. The strokes and the letters of the
signatures are characteristic of a person experienced in the long and frequent
use of the pen. Ticaon declared that he was promised that he would be prosecuted
only as jueteng bettor and would be made to pay only a fine. It is
probable that the accused, losing all hopes of acquittal, offered to accept
responsibility as mere jueteng bettors and were made to sign a
statement of what they were willing to admit.

Upon the evidence in this case, we entertain no doubt as to the guilt of
appellants. The social scourge of gambling must be stamped out. The laws against
gambling must be enforced to the limit.

The lower court sentenced each of said appellants to an indeterminate penalty
of from six (6) months and one (1) day to two (2) years, four (4) months and (1)
day of prision correccional, to suffer the accessory penalties provided
by law, and to pay one-half of the costs. The Solicitor General suggests that
the maximum penalty should be not less than two (2) years, eleven (11) months
and eleven (11) days of prision correccional. The suggestion is
correct. (Article 195, paragraph 2 [c] of the Revised Penal Code, as amended by
Commonwealth Act No. 235.)

With the modification that the maximum of the penalty that should be imposed
upon defendants be two (2) years, eleven. (11) months and eleven (11) days, the
judgment of the lower court is affirmed in all other respects, with costs
against the appellants.

Paras, and Pablo, J.J., concur.

DISSENTING

HILADO, J.:

The present case is concerned with judicial proceedings ha’d during the
Japanese occupation of the Philippines, culminating in a judgment rendered by
the Court of First Instance of Laguna, dated May 8, 1943, acting as an agency of
the so-called and defunct Republic of the Philippines.

This being a case of
the Second Division of this Court composed of five Justices, the affirmative
vote of a majority of said members is sufficient to pronounce a judgment by such
Division. (Executive Order No. 86, dated January 7, 1946, amending Executive
Order No. 40, dated May 4, 1945, of His Excellency, the President of the
Philippines, amendatory of section 133 of the Revised Administrative Code, as
amended.) There are three Justices voting affirmatively for the rendition of the
foregoing judgment. Therefore, I need not waive my stand on the question of
validity or nullity of the proceedings in this case in the Japanese-sponsored
Court of First Instance of Laguna. Nor need I reiterate here the reasons and
considerations supporting my stand in my dissenting and concurring opinions
already delivered in Co Kim Cham vs. Valdez Tan Ken and Dizon (75 Phil., 113) ;
Peralta vs. Director of Prisons (75 Phil., 285) ; People vs. Jose (75 Phil.,
612) ; Alcantara vs. Director of Prisons (75 Phil, 494) ; and De Castro vs.
Court of Appeals (75 Phil, 824). Nor need I state here the additional reasons
and considerations to be set forth in my dissenting opinions in Ibanez vs.
Hernandez (p. 772, post) and in Rustia vs. Aguinaldo (G. R. No. 48928, Sept. 5,
1946)^[1] now in course of preparation.