Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 15 views

    United States Vs Santiago Palma - Article No 195

    Uploaded by

    PAC
    Santiago Palma and Francisco Palma were convicted of playing jueteng in violation of Article 343 of the Penal Code. Santiago was convicted as the owner of the gambling house and Francisco as a player. However, there was no evidence that Francisco had made any bets or had his name on any tickets. Additionally, there was no evidence that Santiago's house had ever been used for gambling before or that it was specially fitted for gambling. The court found the evidence insufficient to convict either appellant.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    United States Vs Santiago Palma - Article No 195

    Uploaded by

    PAC
    15 views1 page
    Santiago Palma and Francisco Palma were convicted of playing jueteng in violation of Article 343 of the Penal Code. Santiago was convicted as the owner of the gambling house and Francisco as a player. However, there was no evidence that Francisco had made any bets or had his name on any tickets. Additionally, there was no evidence that Santiago's house had ever been used for gambling before or that it was specially fitted for gambling. The court found the evidence insufficient to convict either appellant.

    Original Description:

    Criminal Law

    Original Title

    United States vs Santiago Palma - Article No 195

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    Santiago Palma and Francisco Palma were convicted of playing jueteng in violation of Article 343 of the Penal Code. Santiago was convicted as the owner of the gambling house and Francisco as a player. However, there was no evidence that Francisco had made any bets or had his name on any tickets. Additionally, there was no evidence that Santiago's house had ever been used for gambling before or that it was specially fitted for gambling. The court found the evidence insufficient to convict either appellant.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    15 views1 page

    United States Vs Santiago Palma - Article No 195

    Uploaded by

    PAC
    Santiago Palma and Francisco Palma were convicted of playing jueteng in violation of Article 343 of the Penal Code. Santiago was convicted as the owner of the gambling house and Francisco as a player. However, there was no evidence that Francisco had made any bets or had his name on any tickets. Additionally, there was no evidence that Santiago's house had ever been used for gambling before or that it was specially fitted for gambling. The court found the evidence insufficient to convict either appellant.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    of 1

    United States vs Santiago Palma, GR No 2188

    FACTS
    The appellants were convicted of playing the game of jueteng in violation of
    article 343 of the Penal Code, Santiago Palma on the ground that he was the owner
    of the gambling house and Francisco Palma on the ground that he was a player.
    The appellant and twenty-six others were arrested in the house of Santiago
    Palma by the police and the evidence shows that they gathered around a table upon
    which was a bottle (tambiolo) with the balls already in it, envelopes with papers in
    them, about 7 pesos in money, a box with papers in it, and a book. 
    There is no evidence in the case to show that the appellant Francisco Palma
    had made any bet upon the game. There is no evidence that his name appeared
    upon the book or that he was in possession of any ticket bearing any one of the
    thirty-seven numbers. The only proof against him is that he was a bystander.

    ISSUE
    Whether or not appellant is guilty for violating Article 343 of the Penal Code

    DECISION
    NO. In order to convict the appellant Santiago Palma on the ground that he
    was the owner of a gambling house, it must be proved that he was maintaining a
    place devoted to that purpose. There is no evidence in the case to show that this
    game of hueteng or any other game had ever been played in his house before. This
    defendant produced a witness who testified that he lived very near the house of this
    appellant and that he had never seen people frequenting it for the purpose of
    gaming. 
    The apparatus required for the game of jueteng is very portable, and is of
    such a character that the game can be played almost anywhere. It does not require
    that a house or a room should be specially fitted up for the purpose, as is required
    for the playing of some other games of chance.
    The decisions of this court are to the effect that the evidence in this case is
    insufficient to show that the house of this appellant was a gambling house within
    the meaning of article 343.

    You might also like