G.R. No.

L-25513 March 27, 1968

THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee,

Office of the Solicitor General for plaintiff-appellee.

REYES, J.B.L., Actg. C.J.:

Appeal from a judgment of the Court of First Instance of Manila, in its Criminal Case No.
65715, convicting appellant Rosauro Dionisio y Cruz of violating Republic Act, No. 3063, and
sentencing him to imprisonment for one month.

The case and facts are stated in the appellant's, brief (pages 1-2) and agreed to by the
Solicitor General, in this wise:
1äwphï1.ñët

ROSAURO DIONISIO, appellant herein, was charged with having violated Republic
Act No. 3063 before the Court of First Instance of Manila in an information filed by the
Assistant City Fiscal in this wise:

That on or about the 19th day of August, 1962, in the City of Manila,
Philippines, the said accused, a person who is not duly authorized in any capacity by
the Games and Amusement Board to conduct a horse race, did then and there
wilfully and unlawfully offer, arrange and collect bets for the Special Daily Double
Race being then conducted at the Sta. Ana Racing Club at Makati, Rizal, and for that
purpose has in possession the following, to wit: cash money in the amount of P8.50,
one Nueva Era Racing Program, dated Aug. 19, 1962, one list of bets, one ballpen
and one booklet of Daily Double receipt (Original Record, p. 1).

On being arraigned, accused waived his right to be assisted by counsel, and pleaded
not guilty to the charge. (Id., p.5).

However, when the case was finally called for trial, accused voluntarily waive his right
to be assisted by counsel, withdrew his former plea of not guilty and pleaded guilty to the
information charging him with violation of Rep. Act No. 3063. The Court a quo found him
guilty beyond reasonable doubt and, accordingly, sentenced him "to suffer one month
imprisonment." (Id., p. 18).

Having filed an appeal bond duly approved by the court a quo, his appeal from the
decision of said Court was given due course. (Id., p. 19).

Section 1 of Republic Act No. 3063 amends section 2 of R.A. 954 to read as follows:

SEC. 2. No person shall offer, take or arrange bets on any horse race, or maintain or
use a totalizator or other device, method or system to bet or gamble on any horse race
outside the place, enclosure, or track where the race is held. This prohibition shall not apply
to a race-track or racing club licensed by the Games and Amusements Board to conduct
horse race nor to the duly authorized agents of such race-truck or racing club and its duly
authorized agents are hereby authorized on the days when races are being held in its
 premises to offer, take or arrange bets outside the place, enclosure or track where the races
are held, provided such bets are offered, taken or arranged only in Rizal Province and
chartered cities. The sale of such tickets shall be made only from offices or booths and shall
be recorded in the race track before the start of the races.

Violation of the Act is sanctioned by "a fine of not less than one thousand pesos nor more than
two thousand pesos or by imprisonment for not less than one month or more than six months, or
both, in the discretion of the Court." (R. A. 954, Sec. 1, as amended by R. A. 3063, sec. 2).

Sole issue posed by appellant is that the penalty as applied to his offense infringes the
constitutional provision that —1äw phï1.ñët

Excessive fines shall not be imposed nor cruel and unusual punishment inflicted. (Art.
III, Sec. 1, clause 19, of the Constitution of the Philippines).

To bolster his position, appellant argues that the provided penalty is harsh, the true measure
of the gravity of any offense being its effects, if unchecked, upon the well-being of the people and
the body politic. The premise can be granted, without the conclusion being true or correct.

Neither fines nor imprisonment constitute in themselves cruel and unusual punishment, for the
constitutional stricture has been interpreted as referring to penalties that are inhuman and
barbarous, or shocking to the conscience (Weems vs. U.S., 217 U. S. 349) and fines or
imprisonment are definitely not in this category.

Nor does mere severity constitute cruel and unusual punishment. In People vs. Estoista, 93
Phil. 655, this Court ruled:

It takes more than merely being harsh, excessive, out of proportion, or severe for a
penalty to be obnoxious to the Constitution. "The fact that the punishment authorized by the
statute, is severe does not make it cruel and unusual." (24 C.J.S. 1187-1188.) Expressed in
other terms, it has been held that to come under the ban, the punishment must be "flagrantly
and plainly oppressive," "wholly disproportionate to the nature of the offense as to shock the
moral sense of the community." (Idem.) Having in mind the necessity for a radical measure
and the public interest at stake, we do not believe that: five years' confinement for
possessing firearms, even as applied to appellant's and similar cases, can be said to be
cruel and unusual, barbarous, or excessive to the extent of being shocking to public
conscience. It is of interest to note that the validity on constitutional grounds of the Act in
question was contested neither at the trial nor in the elaborate printed brief for the appellant;
it was raised for the first time in the course of the oral argument in the Court of Appeals. It is
also noteworthy, as possible gauge of popular and judicial reaction the duration of the
imprisonment stipulated in the statute, that some members of the court at first expressed
opposition to any recommendation for executive clemency for the appellant, believing that he
deserved imprisonment within the prescribed range.

What evils should be corrected as pernicious to the body politic, and how correction should be
done, is a matter primarily addressed to the discretion of the legislative department, not of the
courts; and the view that unsupervised gambling is definitely detrimental to the nation and its citizens
counts with respectable support. "The hope of large or easy gain, obtained without special effort,
turns the head of the workman, and habitual gambling is a cause of laziness and ruin." (Planiol, Droit
Civil, Vol. 2, No. 2110). "The social scourge of gambling must be stamped out. The laws against
gambling must be enforced to the limit." (Peo. vs. Gorostiza, 77 Phil. 88).
 WHEREFORE, the decision appealed from is affirmed. Costs against appellant. So ordered. 1äw phï1.ñët

Dizon, Makalintal, Bengzon, J.P., Zaldivar, Sanchez, Castro, Angeles and Fernando, JJ., concur.

The Lawphil Project - Arellano Law Foundation