Article 1352 -US v. Ricoy

US v. RAMON GOMEZ RICOY 

[ GR No. 81, Dec 27, 1902 ]

 

DECISION

1 Phil. 595

ARELLANO, C.J.:

During the month of January, 1900, chips and stub tickets were used in the Spanish Casino for gambling games, including monte, which was being played there. These chips were made of mother of pearl and were worth from 5 to 100 pesos each; the checks represented $1,000 each. The chips circulated as money in the Casino and also at times on the Escolta. They belonged to the Casino and were to be exchanged for cash therein. In that month there was a person engaged whose duty it was to deliver the chips to the gamblers in exchange for money or I. O. U's. It does not appear clearly from the record who was in charge of the comptoir during that month, but it is proven that Mr. Lobaton was in charge of the chips and that Ricoy, the accused, was the inspector of the games. The duty of Mr. Ricoy as such inspector was to give orders to Mr. Lobaton with respect to requests for chips made by the players, who purchased them by notes or I.O.U's signed by them. Mr. Lobaton delivered no chips to anyone without previous orders from Mr. Ricoy. Mr. Ricoy also signed the stub tickets used in the Casino.

At 2 o'clock on the afternoon of January 3, 1900, a game of monte was commenced in the Spanish Casino, the game on which this case turns, and was ended at 7 o'clock on the morning of the 4th. It was the practice or custom observed in the Casino during that month that the Casino and one of the players were to alternate as bankers. That night Mr. Angeles was banker, and therefore he was entitled to all the profits of the game.

Several players took a hand in the game, including the accused, Ricoy, himself, and Messrs. Sabas del Rosario, Mapua, and others. On the night in question, at the request of Ricoy, Sabas, and others who made up the set for the game, Don Joaquin Lafont took part, receiving chips from Señor Lobaton in the comptoir and distributing them to those sitting around the table. Upon receiving chips for the value of $100, $500, or $1,000 the players gave their I. O. U.'s to Señor Lobaton, who kept their account on a half sheet of paper until the liquidation of the deal. Señor Ricoy gave an I. O. U. or note to Mr. Lafont every time he received from the latter $5,000. Señor Mapua did the same. At the end of the game a liquidation was had among all the players. This liquidation was carried out "on the basis of the number of due bills or I. O. U's which Señor Lobaton had received from each player and his note of having made delivery to them."

The result of the liquidation was that Señor Angeles, the banker, had won chips and stub tickets to the value of $39,300. All the witnesses have testified that Sefior Angeles delivered to Señor Ricoy all the chips and tickets, and that Señor Ricoy immediately told Sefior Lobaton to draw up a note or I. O. U. for the amount; this Señor Lobaton did and Sefior Ricoy signed the note and delivered it to Señor Angeles. It does not appear from the record whether Señor Ricoy signed this note as inspector or in his individual capacity. The witness Señor Lobaton repeatedly testified in the case that Señor Ricoy had lost this amount and it appeared from his notes that he had delivered to Ricoy the sum of $39,300. It also appears by the record that Señor Mapua lost the sum of $6,000 in this game, which he paid in his house to Señor Lobaton that same morning, Señor Lobaton turning over the note or I. O. U. to Señor Mapua. It appears froin the record of the testimony of the witness Don Jose Olivares that when the note for $39,300 was delivered to Señor Angeles, the latter accepted it, took up the note, and went away. There was no protest on the part of anyone.

The witness Enrique Godino in his testimony used language which indicates that there might be some responsibility on the part of the Casino with respect to the chips and tickets which were in the hands of Señor Angeles before they were delivered to Señor Ricoy. The same appears from the testimoy of Señor Olivares.

Señor Lobaton testified that he could not state precisely whether the sum which was represented by the due bill or I. O. U. was won entirely from Ricoy by Angeles, and Señor Lafont testified to the same effect.

Señor Sabas del Rosario affirms that Sefior tticoy made this liquidation by virtue of his office in the Casino.

Señor Lobaton testified that Sefior Ricoy had directed him to tell Señor Angeles that he wanted to see him in order to pay him that amount, and that in consequence Señor Lobaton on the 7th told Señor Angeles to call on the following day. On the 8th Messrs. Ricoy, Palma, and others were in the Casino. Señor Ricoy asked Señor Angeles if he had brought the note or due bill, and the latter, having replied affirmatively, took it out of his pocket and handed it to Señor Ricoy. The two immediately went into another room, and there were no eyewitnesses to what occurred between them there. The record only discloses that Señor Angeles returned carrying in his hand a letter which had been delivered to him by Señor Lobaton. This letter is in the record, and reads as follows: "Lucio, I have been anxious for a long time to fool an Indian, and I take advantage of this occasion to fool you. Ricoy." And Señor Ricoy disappeared.

It does not appear from the record that any attempt was made to recover the note.

The record contains an information charging the accused with the crime of estafa as denned and punished by articles 534 and 535, paragraph 9, of the Penal Code.

The act of which the accused is charged and as it appears to have been committed constitutes prima facie> a crime. The decision of his inculpability and the judgment of acquittal were premature, the trial not having been terminated either on behalf of the prosecution or defense. The latter had not been able to offer or introduce any testimony, and it appears that on frequent occasions during the taking of the testimony for the prosecution the defense was not allowed to introduce testimony in its behalf, which was postponed to the proper time.

The accused being entitled to a full and complete trial, we are of the opinion that the judgment of acquittal rendered by the Court of First Instance must be set aside and the case remanded, with directions to the court to continue the same from the point in which it was interrupted by the decision, without retaking the testimony received up to that time, which, in so far as it may be relevant and competent, may be considered, and such evidence as may be offered by the accused, and any additional evidence which either of the parties may be entitled to introduce will be taken in the manner prescribed by law. So ordered.

Cooper, Smith, and Mapa, JJ., concur.

Torres, J., disqualified.

FACTS:

Mr. Ricoy worked as an inspector in a casino together with Mr. Lobaton who was in charge of delivering chips to players upon request, who purchased them by notes or I.O.U’s. Mr. Lobaton delivered no chips to anyone without previous orders from Mr. Ricoy who also signs the stub tickets used in the casino.

On January 3, 1900 at 2’oclock in the afternoon a game of Monte was commenced in the Spanish Casino. It was a practice observed in the casino that during that month the casino and one of the players were to alternate as bankers.

Mr. Angeles was banker that night, and was entitled to all the profits of the game. Mr. Ricoy, Messrs. Sabas Del Rosario, Mapua and Don Joaquin Lafont took part in the game. After which, liquidation was made and Senor Angeles won the value of $39,300.00 which was delivered to Mr. Ricoy as chips and tickets. I.O.U was signed by Senor Ricoy and delivered to Mr. Angeles. Senor Mapua lost the sum of $6,000.00 which he paid to Senor Lobaton.

On the 8th, Senor Ricoy and Senor Angeles went into the room without witnesses upon confirmation that Senor Angeles had brought the note. The record only discloses a letter which reads as follows “Lucio I have been anxious for a long time to fool an Indian, and I take advantage on this occasion to fool you, Ricoy.” And Senor Ricoy disappeared.

ISSUE:

Whether or not Senor Ricoy is guilty of estafa?

RULING:

Yes. Where the maker of a promissory note given to cover losses incurred at monte in a gambling house obtanins possession of the note and conceals and destroys it, he is prima facie guilty of estafa.