US vs Hilario

Facts:

The accused isidro Hilario, was charged with a violation of sec 621 of the Revised Ordinances of the City
of Manila, as he was allegedly accused of being the owner of in charge of the premises and billiard hall,
where he illegally permitted the playing of a game called nones y pares for money and things of value.

Issue:

Whether or not the accused is liable despite him being the owner?

Held:

The complaint alleges that the defendant voluntarily and illegally permitted the playing of the game
nones for money and other things of value upon his premises. It is nowhere alleged that nones y pares is
a gambling game, nor can this be inferred from the allegations in the complaint. It therefore follows that
the allegations in the complaint do not constitute a pubic offense.
US vs Rafael

Facts:

The defendants were charged with a violation of act no 1757. The accused were alleged to play, making
bets in money, the game of chance called monte. They were charged, and sentenced by the lower court
on the ground that they were in possession of tally sheets, pencil, and other things which would tie the
accused to the game of monte. Also the accused claimed that they were not gambling as they did not
use any wager.

Issue:

Whether or not the accused is guilty of illegal gambling?

Held:

Yes, the use of money is not a necessary element in the crime described or defined by the law. It seems
that the purpose of the law was to prohibit absolutely the game of monte in the Philippines. The mere
fact that money was or was not used in no way constitute an element of the crime.
US vs Samaniego

Facts:

On November 25, 1907, the accused Manuel Samaniego, had a sexual intercourse with Juana Perez who
was married to Jose Perez. Without having any matrimonial tie between them, they habitually appear
together in public places, places of recreation, suspicious places, vacant houses, and houses of bad
repute, in the daytime, as well as in the nighttime, dressed only in their night clothes, embraced each
other and caressed each other in the presence of the family of Juana.

Issue:

Whether or not the accused is guilty of grave scandal?

Held:

The acts complained of lack many elements essential to bring them within the purview of the article of
the penal code invoked by the prosecution. Every act that was in anywise public fails entirety of those
qualities which offend modesty and good morals by grievous scandal or enormity. The occurnce at the
residence is required by the article of the penal code referred to. Absent is the element of publicity as
the acts were not committed in public places or within public knowledge or view, the accused is
therefore acquitted.
US vs Catajay

Facts:

The accused in this case committed at night, in a private house, and at a time when no one was present
except the accused, the mistress of the house, and one servant.

Issue:

Whether or not the accused is guilty of the crime grave scandal?

Held:

No, absent the element of publicity, the accused cannot be held liable for the crime of grave scandal.
People vs Go Pin

Facts:

Go Pin, a Chinese Citizen, was charged with a violation of article 201 of the Revised Penal Code for
having exhibited a large number of one real 16 millimeter films about 100 feet in length each, which are
allegedly indecent and or immoral. The accused claims that the exhibit is for the art, and has only a
slight degree of obscenity.

Issue:

Whether or not the accused is guilty of obscene publication?

Held:

Yes, if such pictures, sculptures and paintings are shown in art exhibits and art galleries for the cause of
art, to be viewed and appreciated by people interested in art, there would be no offense committed.
However, the pictures here in question were used not exactly for the art’s sake but rather for
commercial purposes. In other words, the supposed artistic qualities of said pictures were being
commercialized so that the cause of art was of secondary or minor importance.
People vs Mirabien

Facts:

Joaquim Mirabien was the proprietor of a bar and restaurant called, New bohemian refreshment. The
true occupation of the accused consisted in maintaining a house of prostitution, the restaurant was
merely a means by which the exploitation of women could be carried on.

Issue:

Whether or not the accused is guilty, despite him being the maintainer of the said establishment?

Held:

Yes, the accused must be considered a lewd or dissolute person, for one dedicated to the sale of human
flesh could hardly be otherwise. In the second place, the accused lived in the camouflaged restaurant for
such is deduced from his own testimony. And lastly, the restaurant was a house of ill fame, for evidence
proved it to be so and the trial judge made this finding. Want of visible means of support is not made an
ingredient of this part of the vagrancy law.
US vs Cruz

Facts:

The defendant, a cochero, having solicited an American soldier to go with him in his rig to find a woman
of loose morals and having secured a Deliah for the soldier is a procurer or a pimp, guilty of the offense
punished by section 733 of the revised ordinances of the city of manila. Although, this fact was only
shown by the testimony of one witness, yet this is sufficient especially when corroborated, to a support
a judgement of conviction if, as in this instance, it satisfies beyond a reasonable doubt.

Held:

The court found him guilty of vagrancy.

US vs Molina

Facts:

The accused, after serving a short sentence for a violation of the Opium Law, had been engaged in no
legal occupation, and was without any apparent means of support other than that supplied him by his
mother; that he is an able-bodied man of 33 years of age; that he habitually neglected to apply himseld
to any lawful calling, and that he spent his time in loitering about the streets and frequenting cockpits
and places where various kinds of gambling were conducted.

Issue:

Whether or not the accused is considered as a vagrant?

Held:

Yes, as held in the case of Gavin vs State, in vagrancy, the offense consists in general worthlessness; that
is to say, in being idle, and, though able to work refusing to do so, and living without labor, or on the
charity of others.
US vs Hart

Facts:

In this case, there are 3 accused. Miller, was alleged to have had a reputation of being a gambler; that he
pleaded guilty and was fined for participating in a gambling game, and was seen in houses of
prostitution, though he was able to provide for himself and his family. Next, Natividad was that he had
gambled nearly every night for a considerable time, in the saloon of one Raymundo, and as well as in
Hart’s saloon. He, as well as Miller, was able to provide for himself and his family.

Issue:

Whether or not the accuseds in this case is considered to be vagrants under the law?

Held:

No, in this case, all three of the defendants were earning a living by legitimate methods in a degree of
comfort higher than the average. Their sole offense was gambling, which the legislature deemed
advisable to make the subject of a penal law.
People vs Dulay

Facts:

The victim in this case, was, at that time, a minor, 12 years of age. She was trafficked by the accused,
Dina Dulay, when she was delivered to one “Speed” for purpose of prostitution.

Issue:

Whether or not the accused is guilty of the crime human trafficking?

Held:

Yes, the act of appellant in convincing the minor, who was 12 years old at that time, to go with her and
thereafter, offer her for sex to a man in exchange for money makes her liable under RA 7610.
People vs Casio

Facts:

The accused was found guilty of trafficking 3 minors at Queensland Motel. In the accused defense, she
was framed by the police, and that the accused consented to such calling.

Issue:

Whether or not the accused is guilty of trafficking persons?

Held:

Yes, the victim’s consent is rendered meaningless due to the coercive, abusive, or deceptive means
employed by perpetrators of human trafficking. Even without the use of coercive, abusive, or deceptive
means, a minor’s consent is not given out of his or her own free will. Not only did the accused
committed human trafficking, she committed qualified trafficking as the offended parties are minors, at
the time of the commission of the crime.
People vs Hirang

Facts:

The accused, recruited