THIRD DIVISION
G.R. No. 216933, March 15, 2021
PAQUITO TOH BUSTILLO @ KITS, Petitioner, v. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Respondent.
D E C I S I O N
LEONEN, J.:
This resolves a Petition for Review assailing the Decision1 and Resolution2 of the Court of Appeals, which affirmed the conviction of accused-appellant Paquito Toh Bustillo (Bustillo) @ "Kits" for violating Presidential Decree No. 1602,3 as amended, otherwise known as the Anti-Gambling Law.
In 2008, Bustillo was charged for violation of Presidential Decree No. 1602, as amended by Republic Act No. 9287, for acting as a masiao agent or collector. The accusatory portion of the Information reads:chanroblesvirtualawlibrary
The undersigned Prosecutor I of Cebu City accuses PACQUITO TOH BUSTILLO @ KITS for VIOL. OF P.D. 1602 AS AMENDED BY RA 9287, committed as follows:Bustillo then posted a P2,000.00 bond to secure his provisional release.5 Upon arraignment, Bustillo pleaded not guilty.6 Trial on the merits ensued.7
That on or about the 6th DAY OF FEBRUARY 2008 at about 11:00 o'clock in the evening, in the City of Cebu, Philippines, and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the said accused being then unlawfully in possession of FOURTEEN (14) PIECES OF SHEETS OF PAPERS WITH 3 NUMBER COMBINATIONS; TWO (2) SHEETS OF PAPERS; 719.20 PIECE SIGNED kits AND CASH MONEY IN THE AMOUNT OF P416.25, with deliberate intent, did then and there engage in an illegal gambling activity known as "Jai-Alai Masiao" that uses numbers or combinations as factors in giving jackpots, by issuing such numbers or combinations to a customer/bettor for a consideration the result of which depended upon the alleged game of Jai-Alai.4 (Emphasis in the original)
Accordingly, this court finds the accused guilty as charged and hereby sentences him to suffer the penalty of imprisonment of from six (6) years and one (1) day to eight (8) years.The trial court held that the prosecution satisfactorily proved the guilt of Bustillo.38 It was convinced that the evidence of the defense showing the sheets of paper marked "719-20 KITS" and "396-20 KITS" and the paper stub with number combinations prove that Bustillo, whose alias is "Kits," was engaged in an illegal numbers game.39
.... SO ORDERED.37
WHEREFORE, in view of the foregoing premises, the instant appeal is hereby DENIED. The assailed Decision dated 23 March 2009 promulgated by the Regional Trial Court, Branch 58 in Cebu City in Criminal Case No. CBU-82281 is AFFIRMED WITH MODIFICATION that the indeterminate penalty is imprisonment of eight (8) years and one (1) day to nine (9) years as maximum.chanroblesvirtualawlibraryThe appellate court ruled that there was no violation of Bustillo's constitutional right as the Information clearly described the charge in a manner that sufficiently apprised Bustillo of the offense charged against him and enabled him to adequately prepare his defense. A reading of the Information shows that Bustillo was prosecuted for being a collector or agent for the illegal numbers game known as jai-alai masiao, by issuing numbers or combinations to a bettor. This is further supported by the allegation in the Information that he was found in possession of several masiao paraphernalia.47
SO ORDERED.46 (Emphasis in the original)
SECTION 8. Designation of the offense. - The complaint or information shall state the designation of the offense given by the statute, aver the acts or omissions constituting the offense, and specify its qualifying and aggravating circumstances. If there is no designation of the offense, reference shall be made to the section or subsection of the statute punishing it.The right to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation against an accused has the following objectives: (1) to furnish the accused with a description of the charge against him which will enable him to make a defense; (2) to avail himself of conviction or acquittal for protection against further prosecution for the same cause; and (3) to inform the court of the facts alleged, so that it may decide whether they are sufficient in law to support a conviction, if warranted.88
SECTION. 9. Cause of the accusation. - The acts or omissions complained of as constituting the offense and the qualifying and aggravating circumstances must be stated in ordinary and concise language and not necessarily in the language used in the statute but in terms sufficient to enable a person of common understanding to know what offense is being charged as well as its qualifying and aggravating circumstances and for the court to pronounce judgment.87
What is controlling is not the title of the complaint, nor the designation of the offense charged or the particular law or part thereof allegedly violated, these being mere conclusions of law made by the prosecutor, but the description of the crime charged and the particular facts therein recited. The acts or omissions complained of must be alleged in such form as is sufficient to enable a person of common understanding to know what offense is intended to be charged, and enable the court to pronounce proper judgment.Hence, prosecutors are not required to designate the offense by its formal name in the law. The Information is deemed sufficient as long as the controlling words in the body of the Information adequately determine the crime charged.99
No information for a crime will be sufficient if it does not accurately and clearly allege the elements of the crime charged. Every element of the offense must be stated in the information. What facts and circumstances are necessary to be included therein must be determined by reference to the definitions and essentials of the specified crimes. The requirement of alleging the elements of a crime in the information is to inform the accused of the nature of the accusation against him so as to enable him to suitably prepare his defense[.]98
The undersigned Prosecutor I of Cebu City accuses PACQUITO TOH BUSTILLO@ KITS for VIOL. OF P.D. 1602 AS AMENDED BY RA 9287, committed as follows:A person of common understanding can deduce that the alleged act of issuing masiao tickets to a customer or bettor for a consideration falls within the scope of a "collector or agent" under Section 2(g), in relation to Section 3(c), of Republic Act No. 9287. The relevant sections read:chanroblesvirtualawlibrary
That on or about the 6th DAY OF FEBRUARY 2008 at about 11:00 o'clock in the evening, in the City of Cebu, Philippines, and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the said accused, being then unlawfully in possession of FOURTEEN (14) PIECES OF SHEETS OF PAPERS WITH 3 NUMBER COMBINATIONS; TWO (2) SHEETS OF PAPERS; 719.20 PIECE SIGNED [KITS] AND CASH MONEY IN THE AMOUNT OF [P]416.25, with deliberate intent, did then and there engage in an illegal gambling activity known as "Jai-Alai Masiao" that uses numbers or combinations as factors in giving jackpots, by issuing such numbers or combinations to a customer/bettor for a consideration the result of which depended upon the alleged game of Jai Alai.
CONTRARY TO LAW.101 (Emphasis supplied)
SECTION 2. Definition of Terms. - As used in this Act, the following terms shall mean:The Information sufficiently charges petitioner of violating Republic Act No. 9287 for acting as a collector or agent of an illegal numbers game. While it does not use the formal designation of the provision violated, the Information contains no ambiguity. It clearly indicates that petitioner was charged for acting as a jai-alai masiao collector or agent by issuing numbers or combinations tickets to a bettor.
....
(g) Collector or Agent ("Cabo", "Cobrador", "Coriador" or variants thereof). - Any person who collects, solicits or produces bets in behalf of his/her principal for any illegal numbers game who is usually in possession of gambling paraphernalia.
SECTION 3. Punishable Acts. - Any person who participates in any illegal numbers game shall suffer the following penalties:
....
c) The penalty of imprisonment from eight (8) years and one (1) day to ten (10) years, if such person acts as a collector or agent[.]
[T]he findings of the trial court carry great weight and respect due to the unique opportunity afforded them to observe the witnesses when placed on the stand. Consequently, appellate courts will not overturn the factual findings of the trial court in the absence of facts or circumstances of weight and substance that would affect the result of the case. Said rule finds an ever more stringent application where the said findings are sustained by the CA, as in the case at hand[.]106Nevertheless, the rule admits several exceptions. Thus:chanroblesvirtualawlibrary
The lower court's appreciation of evidence and factual conclusions cannot run counter to the constitutional right to presumption of innocence and evidentiary demand that guilt be established beyond reasonable doubt. In Macayan, Jr. y Malana v. People:108chanrobleslawlibrary
(1) When the conclusion is a finding grounded entirely on speculation, surmises or conjectures; (2) When the inference made is manifestly mistaken, absurd or impossible; (3) Where there is a grave abuse of discretion; (4) When the judgment is based on a misapprehension of facts; (5) When the findings of fact are conflicting; (6) When the Court of Appeals, in making its findings, went beyond the issues of the case and the same is contrary to the admissions of both appellant and appellee; (7) The findings of the Court of Appeals are contrary to those of the trial court; (8) When the findings of fact are conclusions without citation of specific evidence on which they are based; (9) When the facts set forth in the petition as well as in the petitioner's main and reply briefs are not disputed by the respondents; and (10) The finding of fact of the Court of Appeals is premised on the supposed absence of evidence and is contradicted by the evidence on record.107
This rule places upon the prosecution the task of establishing the guilt of an accused, relying on the strength of its own evidence, and not banking on the weakness of the defense of an accused. Requiring proof beyond reasonable doubt finds basis not only in the due process clause of the Constitution, but similarly, in the right of an accused to be presumed innocent until the contrary is proved. Undoubtedly, it is the constitutional presumption of innocence that lays such burden upon the prosecution. Should the prosecution fail to discharge its burden, it follows, as a matter of course, that an accused must be acquitted. As explained in Basilio v. People of the Philippines:Although the credibility of witnesses is best left to the judgment of the trial court, its findings may be disregarded if the trial court has "ignored or overlooked certain facts or circumstances of weight and significance, which if taken into consideration would alter the outcome of the case."110
We ruled in People v. Ganguso:chanroblesvirtualawlibraryAn accused has in his favor the presumption of innocence which the Bill of Rights guarantees. Unless his guilt is shown beyond reasonable doubt, he must be acquitted. This reasonable doubt standard is demanded by the due process clause of the Constitution which protects the accused from conviction except upon proof beyond reasonable doubt of every fact necessary to constitute the crime with which he is charged. The burden of proof is on the prosecution, and unless it discharges that burden the accused need not even offer evidence in his behalf, and he would be entitled to an acquittal. Proof beyond reasonable doubt does not, of course, mean such degree of proof as, excluding the possibility of error, produce absolute certainty. Moral certainty only is required, or that degree of proof which produces conviction in an unprejudiced mind. The conscience must be satisfied that the accused is responsible for the offense charged.
Well-entrenched in jurisprudence is the rule that the conviction of the accused must rest, not on the weakness of the defense, but on the strength of the prosecution. The burden is on the prosecution to prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt, not on the accused to prove his innocence.109
However, SPO2 Cerna later admitted that while the anonymous tip should be recorded as an alarm report, there was no recorded report in their police blotter.112
Q: Why were you there? A: We were there to arrest a person for violation of the new gambling law. Q: How did you know that person? A: We received a report through telephone call from anonymous person that there was a person of issuing number combinations in the vicinity of Pier 3. Q: How did you know this person? A: He was described by the caller that the person was wearing a short pants denims and white shirt.111
SPO2 Cerna also mentioned that he saw petitioner surrounded by many persons while writing on a piece of paper. However, they failed to arrest even one of these individuals:115chanrobleslawlibrary
Q: You said that there were three of you of that team which conducted the preventive patrol? A: Yes sir. Q: Before the actual arrest of the accused, from where did you and your team came from? A: At the police station. Q: You conducted the preventive patrol because there was somebody who called you up? A: No sir. Q: There was no telephone call? A: Yes sir. Q: Meaning the directive was to conduct a preventive patrol? A: Yes sir. Q: And indeed you will confirm that there was no telephone call or a report from a person? A: Yes sir.114
Further, it remains uncertain how and who handled and marked the evidence. When the evidence was presented before the trial court, the prosecution witnesses could not identify the paraphernalia allegedly confiscated from the petitioner.
Q: By the way, is it not that the person who issued a number combination was violating a law. Is that your understanding of RA 9287? A: Yes. Q: How about the person [to] whom that number combination was issued. Was he also violating a law? A: Yes. Q: You said that the accused at the time of the arrest was surrounded by so many persons. Were you able to arrest other persons aside from the accused? A: When we arrested the accused, the people who surrounded the accused already scampered away. Q: By the way, how many of you [ ] arrested the accused in this case? A: There were only 3 of us. Q: Despite your number and your capability being policemen, it is only the accused you were able to arrest? A: Yes, because as we were approaching, the people noticed our presence. They immediately moved away in different direction. Q: During the arrest, were your team wearing a police uniform? A: No. Q: Despite the fact that your identit[ies] were concealed because you said your team was not wearing a uniform, you still maintain that when you approached this group surrounding the accused, they immediately scampered away? A: Yes. I think those people are residents in the area and recognize our face. Our station is just a few meters from the area.116
Meanwhile, PO1 Tanggol claimed that it was PO2 Berry who recovered the paraphernalia, who then marked the items in his presence. However, PO1 Tanggol likewise failed to identify the evidence when it was presented to him because he allegedly forgot the markings:chanroblesvirtualawlibrary
Q: Mr. Witness, last time you made mention that you recovered from the accused some masiao paraphernalia and money. And you promised to bring them when you testified. Do you have with you now the evidences? A: Yes, sir. FISCAL ACOSTA: The witness has turned over to this representation a plastic with marking PTB-02-06-08 which contains cut papers with elongated paper, money worth P146.25 with coins and bills. May we pray that this be marked as Exh. "B", collectively.119 ... Q: Is it not during your direct examination you said that the paraphernalia was with PO1 Ramil Tanggol? A: Yes. After the arrest I turned over the paraphernalia to him because he was designated as evidence custodian in our team. Q: After the arrest, what particular marking that you made to the evidence to describe that the said evidence was confiscated from the accused? A: PKB-02-06-08. Q: That is the very same evidence which was marked before this Honorable Court as Exh. B for the prosecution? A: I have no idea. Q: You said that you marked those evidences to identify that the same was confiscated from the accused. Where did you mark the said evidences? A: It was at the police station. Q: You did not mark it at the time you arrested the accused? A: No.120
The questionable circumstances surrounding the arrest and, more important, the seizure, marking, and identification of the evidence before the trial court, show the prosecution's failure to establish petitioner's guilt beyond reasonable doubt.
Q: Considering that you were three at that time who among you...recovered the [paraphernalia]? A: PO2 Berry. Q: Were you there? A: Yes sir. Q: Can you still identify the said evidences if shown to you again? A: Yes sir. Q: How? A: Through the markings. Q: Who placed the markings? A: PO2 Berry. Q: Where were you when Berry made the markings? A: At the police station. Q: Where were you at that time? A: Besides him. Q: What was the marking? A: I forgot the marking? Q: How could you identify then when you said you forgot the marking? A: I cannot identify.121
Endnotes:
* Designated additional Member per Raffle dated February 17, 2021.
1Rollo, pp. 4-16. The December 21, 2012 Decision in CA-G.R. CEB-CR No. 01347 was penned by Associate Justice Edgardo L. Delos Santos (now a member of this Court) and concurred in by Associate Justices Pamela Ann Abella Maxino and Marilyn B. Lagura-Yap of the Nineteenth Division, Court of Appeals, Cebu City.
2 Id. at 70-71. The May 13, 2014 Resolution in CA-G.R. CEB-CR No. 01347 was penned by Associate Justice Edgardo L. Delos Santos (now a member of this Court) and concurred in by Associate Justices Pamela Ann Abella Maxino and Marilyn B. Lagura-Yap of the Former Nineteenth Division, Court of Appeals, Cebu City.
3 As amended by amended by Republic Act No. 9287 (2003).
4Rollo, p. 96 and 104.
5 RTC records, p. 8-10.
6Rollo, p. 96.
7 Id. at 96; RTC records, p. 1.
8Rollo, p. 96.
9 Id.
10 Id.
11 Id. at 97.
12 Id. at 97; RTC records. p. 91, TSN dated September 4, 2008.
13 RTC records, p. 93.
14Rollo, p. 97; RTC records, p. 92.
15Rollo, p. 97.
16 RTC records, p. 104, TSN dated October 16, 2008.
17Rollo, p. 97.
18 RTC records, p. 104.
19 Id. at 100-101.
20 Id. at 109 and 114, TSN dated October 30, 2008.
21Rollo, p. 97; RTC records, p. 110.
22 Id.
23Rollo, p. 97; RTC records, p. 115.
24 RTC rollo, p. 115.
25 Id. at 115.
26 Id. at 122, TSN dated November 13, 2008.
27 Id. at 122-123 and 125.
28 Id. at 123.
29Rollo, p. 98.
30 Id. at 98.
31 Id. at 98-99; RTC records, p. 131, TSN dated December 4, 2008.
32Rollo, p. 98.
33 Id. at 99.
34 Id.
35 Id. at 100.
36 Id. at 96-100. The March 23, 2009 Decision was penned by Presiding Judge Gabriel T. Ingles of the Regional Trial Court, Seventh Judicial Region, Branch 58, Cebu City.
37 Id. at 100.
38 Id.
39 Id. at 99-100.
40 Id. at 100.
41 Id. at 9.
42 Id.
43 Id.
44 Id. at 7.
45 Id. at 4-16.
46 Id. at 16.
47 Id. at 8-9.
48 Id. at 9.
49 Id. at 10-13.
50 Id. at 10.
51 Id. at 13.
52 Id. at 14.
53 Id. at 14.
54 Id.
55 Id. at 15.
56 Id.
57 Id. at 70-71.
58 Id. at 35-50.
59 Id. at 42.
60 Id. at 43.
61 Id.
62 Id. at 44.
63 Id.
64 Id. at 45.
65 Id.
66 Id. at 46.
67 Id.
68 Id. at 47-48.
69 Id. at 48.
70 Id. at 49.
71 Id.
72 Id.
73 Id. at 50.
74 Id. at 170-194.
75 Id. at 178.
76 Id.
77 Id. at 184.
78 Id. at 183.
79 Id.
80 Id. at 181.
81 Id. at 185.
82 Id.
83 Id. at 189.
84 Id. at 190.
85 Id. at 191.
86 CONST., art. III, sec. 14(2).
87 RULES OF COURT, Rule 110, secs. 8 and 9.
88Pecho v. People, 331 Phil. 1 (1996) [Per J. Davide, Jr., En Banc].
89Quimvel y Braga v. People, 808 Phil. 889 (2017) [Per J. Velasco, Jr., En Banc].
90Andaya v. People, 526 Phil. 480 (2006) [Per J. Ynares-Santiago, First Division].
91People v. Manalili y Bolisay, 355 Phil. 652 (1998) [Per J. Panganiban, First Division].
92People v. Bayya, 384 Phil. 519 (2000) [Per J. Purisima, En Banc]; Buhat v. Court of Appeals, 333 Phil. 562 (1996) [Per J. Hermosisima Jr., First Division].
93People v. Cadampog, 472 Phil. 358 (2004) [Per J. Callejo, Sr., Second Division].
94 Id.
95 424 Phil. 482 (2002) [Per J. Carpio; Third Division].
96 Id. at 484.
97 506 Phil. 630 (2005) [Per Curiam, En Banc].
98 Id. at 632.
99Gamaro v. People, 806 Phil. 483 (2017) [Per J. Peralta, Second Division].
100 Id.
101Rollo, p. 104.
102 RULES OF COURT, Rule 45, sec. 1.
103Pascual v. Burgos, 776 Phil. 167, 182 (2016) [Per J. Leonen, Second Division].
104People v. Gerola y Amar, 813 Phil. 1055 (2017) [Per J. Caguioa, First Division].
105 Id.
106 Id. at 1063-1064.
107Medina v. Asistio, Jr., 269 Phil. 225, 226-227 (1990) [Per J. Bidin, Third Division].
108 756 Phil. 202 (2015) [Per J. Leonen, Second Division].
109 Id. at 213-214.
110People v. Pajares, 310 Phil. 361, 361 (1995) [Per J. Melo, Third Division]; Clemente y Martinez v. People, 667 Phil. 515 (2011) [Per J. Villarama, Jr., Third Division].
111 RTC records, p. 89, TSN dated September 4, 2008.
112 Id. at 102, TSN dated October 16, 2008.
113 Id. at 109, TSN dated October 30, 2008; and 119, TSN dated November 13, 2008.
114 Id. at 113, TSN dated October 30, 2008.
115 Id. at 100, TSN dated October 16, 2008.
116 Id. at 100-101.
117 Id. at 104.
118 Id.
119 Id. at 96-97.
120 Id. at 104.
121 Id. at 111-112, TSN dated October 30,2008.
122 807 Phil. 894 (2017) [Per J. Del Castillo, First Division].
123Macayan, Jr. y Malana v. People, 756 Phil. 202 (2015) [Per J. Leonen, Second Division].cralawredlibrary