Case Title: Villamor vs.

People GR Number / Year: 200396/2017

Topic: Punishable Acts of Participation in Illegal Numbers Game (Sec. 3)
Petitioner: Martin Villamor and Victor Bonaobra Respondents: People
Emergency Recit:
Police received a tip that jueteng was being played at Bonaobra’s house. They proceeded to the said
place wherein they allegedly caught the petitioners in flagrante delicto by receiving bets thereby
confiscating the items therein. Petitioners were charged for collecting/soliciting bets for jueteng
wherein Villamor acted as a collector while Bonaobra was the supervisor. In their defense, Villamor
was only at Bonaobra’s house to pay a debt he owed when suddenly the police barged in then arrested
them w/o a warrant. SC ruled that the police failed to establish that they were had committed, actually
committing or attempting to commit a crime. The petitioners were doing nothing other than Villamor
visiting Bonaobra’s home to pay said debt. They could not be charged as a collector nor controller
respectively as no act can be imputed to them as the police had a considerable distance to see if
whether petitioners were acting as collector or controller thus they were acquitted.
Doctrine:
1. a collector or agent is "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."
2. a coordinator, controller, or supervisor is defined as, ''any person who exercises
control and supervision over the collector or agent."
Facts:
1. Petitioners were charged for violating Sec. 3(c) of RA 9287 for collecting/soliciting bets
for jueteng and possessing various numbers, calculator, cellphone and cash in
Catanduanes.
2. Petitioners moved for reinvestigation w/c was granted by RTC. The prosecutor
amended its information against them by adding the phrase “acting as a collector” w/
respect to Villamor while Bonaobra was charged as the manager/operator. Both
pleaded not guilty.
3. Per prosecution, Police Supt. Penaflor received a tip regarding an ongoing jueteng at
Brgy. Francia, Virac, Catanduanes at Bonaobra’s home. A team proceeded to verify
the tip. Upon arrival, they peeked thru the bamboo fence to see what was going on.
The police saw petitioners in the act of counting bets (revisar – collating and
examining numbers places in papelitos w/c contain the bet numbers and counting
money bets). They confiscated various gambling paraphernalia and petitioners were
brought to Camp Camacho for investigation and a case was filed against them.
4. Per defense, Villamor was only visiting Bonaobra to pay a loan then the police barged
in saying they caught them in flagrante delicto. They sought for a search warrant but
were eventually accosted by the PNP.
5. The RTC found them guilty as they were caught in flagrante delicto. Villamor’s
participation as a collector since he brought bet money to Bonaobra while Bonaobra
was the coordinator, controller and supervisor.
6. The CA upheld their conviction. The classification of a maintainer, manager or
operator includes a coordinator, controller or supervisor. It ratiocinated that to hold a
maintainer guilty of the lesser offense of acting as a coordinator will not be violative of
his right to be informed of the nature and cause of his accusation since the graver
offense of acting as a maintainer necessarily includes being a coordinator.
Issue/s: Whether petitioner’s conviction for violating RA 9287 as collector or agent under Sec. 3(c) for
Villamor and as coordinator, controller or supervisor under Sec. 3(d) for Bonaobra should be upheld.
Held: NO
1. In the first place, the petitioners’ right against unreasonable search and seizures was violated as
the police barged into Bonaobra’s compound w/o any warrant in hand.
2. Warrantless arrests due to in flagrante delicto has two concurring elements:
a. the person to be arrested must execute an overt act indicating that he has just
committed, is actually committing, or is attempting to commit a crime;
b. such overt act is done in the presence or within the view of the arresting
officer.
3. In this case, it was neither established that petitioners had just committed, were
actually committing nor attempting to commit a crime and that said acts were done in
police’s presence. The police were 15-20m away which is a significant distance to
determine that a crime was committed in flagrante delicto. They only acted based on
an informant’s tip and had no personal knowledge that a crime had been committed.
4. It is clear that the prosecution admitted that Villamor went to Bonaobra's house to pay
his loan to Jonah. Thus, at the exact moment of the arrest, neither Bonaobra, who
was answering his cellphone, nor Villamor, who was paying his loan. was performing
any overt act constitutive of a crime.
5. Consequently, the search and seizure of the effects found inside the house of
Bonaobra are likewise illegal since there could be no valid search incident to an illegal
warrantless arrest. Thus, evidence seized from Bonaobra's house is inadmissible for
being a fruit of the poisonous tree.
6. The prosecution failed to clearly establish the acts that constitute the offense of illegal
gambling as a collector or an agent under Section 3(c), and as a coordinator,
controller, or supervisor under Section 3(d), of RA 9287.
7. Under the said law, a collector or agent is "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."
8. On the other hand, a coordinator, controller, or supervisor is defined as, ''any person
who exercises control and supervision over the collector or agent." The prosecution
merely relied on the alleged illegal gambling paraphernalia found and confiscated
inside the house of Bonaobra and not on the specific overt acts that constitute the
offense.