CERTIFIED TRUE COPY:
ESTELA TERE~SI A C. ROSETE
EX8cutiv~
of Court III
Cler
i~\\.\O
F<rst
REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES
SANDIGANBAYAN
Quezon City
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES,
Plaintiff,
GERALDEZ,J,
Chairperson,
PONFERRADA,
GESMUNDO, J.J.
SAMUEL O. REBOSURA,
Accused.
)(-
- - -
-
-
-
-
- -
-
-
-
-
- - - -
- - - - - -
-
-
- - - -
-
-
/
- - -
-
- - -
- -)(
"Cockfighting is a valid matter of police power regulation,
as it is
form of gambling essentially
2
of enhancing
national
productivity
antagonistic
to the aims
and self-reliance."l
Before the Court are eight cases for violation of Section 5
(d) of Presidential
1974),
against
as
commission,
2
amended
erstwhile
informations,
Decree No. 449 (or the Cockfighting
by Presidential
Mayor
uniformly
Samuel
worded2
Decree
No. 1602,
Rebosura.
e){cept
Law of
for
The
the
filed
eight
date
of
the holder of the permit to engage in cockfighting,
Tan v. Pereiia, G.R. No. 149743, 18 Feb. 2005,452 SeRA 53, 75.
But see footnote number 3.
~
DECISION
Crim. Cases Nos. 28243-50
People v. Rebosura
Page 2 of 29
x-------------------------------x
the number
of days and the specific dates involved in such
activity and the name of the Barangay, read as follows:
INFORMATION
That on or about
(date) at the Municipality
of
Antequera,
Province of Bohol, Philippines,
and within the
jurisdiction
of this Honorable Court, above-named
accused,
SAMUEL O. REBOSURA, public officer, being the Municipal
Mayor of Antequera, Bohol, in such capacity and committing
the offense in relation to office, did then and there willfully,
unlawfully and feloniously issued (sic) a Mayor's permit to
(holder of permit) to hold a (number of days) day cockfight in
Barangay
(name), Antequera,
Bohol, on (specific cockfight
dates), in violation of Section 5 (d) of Presidential Decree 449
for said cockfights were conducted outside a licensed cockpit
and not on a designated day nor on the occasion of a local
fiesta as provided for under said PD 449, as amended. 3
CASE
NO.
DATE OF
PERMIT
HOLDER OF
PERMIT
NO.
OF
DAYS
28243
28244
28245
28246
28247
28248
28249
28250
10 April
2001
10 April
2001
11 June
2001
18 Sept.
2002
27 Nov.
2002
14 April
2003
12 Feb.
2003
27 Feb.
2003
(where
cockfight
will be held)
COCKFIGHT
DATES
Marcelo Tolop
2
St~. Rosario
Teodoro Abucay
3
Tupas
Baran gay
Canlaas Council
Barangay
Canlaas Council
Ireneo Baha1la
1
Canlaas
10 & 12 April
2001
12,20 & 26
April 2001
13 June 2002
1
Canlaas
19 Sept. 2002
1
Cansibuan
28 Nov. 2002
Lucio Pagod
1
Bantolinao
15 April 2003
Simeon Lanoste
1
Cansibuan
13 Feb. 2003
Severina
Maglana
1
Cansibuan
27 Feb. 2003
On 15 May 2006, accused
charges.
BARANGAY
pleaded "Not Guilty" to
Pre-trial ensued thereafter
culminating
in the Pre-
The clause "nor on the occasion of a local fiesta as provided for under said PD
449, as amended" is not found in Criminal Case No. 28245.
DECISION
Crim. Cases Nos. 28243-50
People v. Rebosura
Page 3 of 29
x-------------------------------x
III
Stipulations
1.
That at all times relevant to the accusation, accused
Samuel O. Rebosura was the· Mayor of Antequera,
Bohol;
2.
That accused Samuel O. Rebosura is the same person
named in these cases; and
3.
That the whole municipality of Antequera, Bohol, i.e.,
including all the barangays within its jurisdiction,
celebrates its annual town fiesta every last Saturday of
October.
IV.
Issues
The parties agreed that the ultimate issue in all these
cases is: Whether or not accused Samuel O. Rebosura could
be held criminally liable for issuing Mayor's Permit to operate
cockfights outside a licensed cockpit and not on a designated
day nor on the occasion of a local fiesta, in violation of
Presidential Decree No. 449, as amended by Presidential
Decree No. 1602.4
The prosecution
presented
as its first witness,
private
complainant
ASTERIa N. COQUILLA,who testified that he was
a Municipal
Councilor
and a Barangay
Captain
Municipal
Ordinance
operatiOll
of cockpits
which
ordinance
Bayan,
signed
newspaper
SInce
of Antequera,
was
by the
in 2002.5
No.
In 2000, he sponsored
11 (exhibit
within
duly
Bohol from 1998-2001
"H")
regulating
the jurisdiction
approved
accused
and
by the
published
the.
of Antequera
Sangguniang
in
a local
(exhibit "BB").6 He felt the need for such ordinance
there
was
no
4
Record, pp. 183-184.
5
TSN, 5 Oct. 2006,
6
Id. at 7-10.
p. 6.
law
regarding
cockfighting
In
the
r,
DECISION
Crim. Cases Nos. 28243-50
People v. Rebosura
Page 4 of 29
x-------------------------------x
municipality and the existing cockpit was operating illegally
since 1999 when its license to operate was not renewed.7
Cockfights were also being held in various barangays.8
only was this
of public knowledge but
Not
Coquilla himself
personally witnessed about eight (8) of these cockfights in the
barangays of Sto. Rosario, Tupas, Canlaas, Cansibuan
and
involved under what authority they conducted such cockfights
and the answer was that they were granted permits by the
municipal mayor. 10 Thus, as part of his duties as councilor in
monitoring
the
implementation
of
ordinances
In
the
municipality, Coquilla secured copies of the special permits
from the office of the Municipal Treasurer (exhibits "P", "Q",
"R", "s" , "T", "U", "V" and "W").l1
colleagues
violated
in the
their
Sangguniang
municipal
He conferred with his
Bayan since the permits
ordinance.
12
They then
advised
accused to refrain from issuing such permits but accused did
not heed them.13
Coquilla also got hold of 50 permits
previously issued by accused (exhibits "a-I-A" to "O-46-A").14
On 17 April 2003, a Holy Thursday, Coquilla witnessed a
cockfight which was conducted inside an unlicensed cockpit.1s
This prompted him to lodge a complaint (exhibit "A"- LetterComplaint dated 21 April 2003) in the office of the Governor,
Province of Bohol.16
As far as he knows, his complaint was
endorsed to the Office of the Provincial Legal Officer
7
8
9
10
II
12
13
14
15
16
TSN, 5 Oct. 2006, pp. II.
Id. at 13.
Id.
Id. at 14.
Id. at 14-16.
Id. at 16.
Id. at 17.
Id.
Id. at 19.
Id. at 19-20.
DECISION
Crim. Cases Nos. 28243-50
People v. Rebosura
Page 5 of 29
x-------------------------------x
"B") who, in turn, endorsed
Provincial Prosecutor
then endorsed
gathering
the complaint
(exhibit "C").17 The provincial Prosecutor
the complaint to the Bohol PNP Director for the
of evidence
"D").18 Investigators
and
the
taking
of affidavits
(exhibit
from PNP Bohol and the Chief of Police of
conferred with Coquilla.19
Antequera
to the Office of the
he was not actually interested
Coquilla told them that
in filing a case since what he
wan ted only was for accused to stop from further issuing such
permits;
thus, it was only on 25 August 2003 (or four months
after) that he finally decided to file a complaint with the Office
of the Ombudsman
On
assumed
(exhibit "E").2o
cross-examination,
as Barangay
Coquilla
explained
that
he
Captain in May 2002 but when he filed
his letter complaint on 21 April 2003, he was already a private
citizen
having
accused's
resigned
.
as Barangay
in protest
of
open meddling in the election for ABC President
of
.
which he (Coquilla) was a candidate.21
Captain
He lost to accused's
mother.22
Regarding the cockfight of 17 April 2003 which he
witnessed,
Coquilla stated
that he could not find any permit
for it.23
The
second
GEMETIZA,
testimony
that
witness
former
subscribed
mayor
was dispensed
on 21 August
before Prosecutor
Id. at 22-23.
TSN,6 Oct. 2006, pp. 4-7.
Id. at 6.
of
prosecution
Antequera,
with as the parties
2003,
TSN, 5 Oct. 2006, pp. 20-21.
Id. at 21.
Id. at 22.
Id. at 9.
for the
Gementiza
was
FELIPE
Bohol
whose
had stipulated
executed
I,
i,
an affidavib \
Nefertiti Salise-Cristobal
(exhibit
DECISION
Crim. Cases Nos. 28243-50
People v. Rebosura
Page 6 of 29
x-------------------------------x
"I") albeit
the
truthfulness
defense
did
not
admit
the
correctness
or
of the allegations in the affidavit.24
The third
witness
for the prosecution
was SPO 1 LITO
ROSALES whose testimony was likewise dispensed with on the
stipulation
of the prosecution
that -
. . . sometime June 2003, SPO 1 Lito Rosales was instructed
by then Provincial Director Sancho Rendez to conduct an
investigation on the complaint for illegal cockfighting filed by
Asterio Coquilla; that a case record was given to SPO 1 Lito
Rosales by Provincial Director Rendez which contains the
following:
A letter dated April 21, 2003 addressed to Honorable Erico
B. Aumentado signed by Asterio Coquilla already marked as
[the prosecution's] Exhibit "A"; the 1st Indorsement dated
April 23, 2003 from Atty. Antonio S. Almora, Jr., Provincial
Administrator, to Atty. Angel S. Ucat, Jr., Provincial Legal
Officer of Bohol, marked as Exhibit "B"; 2nd Indorsement
dated April 25,2003 from Angel S. Ucat, Jr., Provincial Legal
Offir.er, to the Hon. Provincial Prosecutor to the Provincial
Director PNP, Camp Dagohoy, marked as Exhibit "C", City of
Tagbilaran, marked as Exhibit "D"; that on the basis of the
instruction, after which, he prepared an affidavit of Asterio
Coquilla and Felipe Gementiza which Affidavit of Asterio
Coquilla dated June 6, 2003 is marked as [the prosecution's]
Exhibit "I"; that in support of said affidavit of Asterio
Coquilla, he presented to [the prosecution's] witness, SPO 1
Lito Rosales nine (9) copies of Mayor's Permits marked as
[the prosecution's] Exhibits "G", "G-1", "G-2", "G-3", "G-4",
"G-5", "G-6", "G-7", "G-8" and the Municipal Ordinance No.
11, Series of 2000 consisting of five (5) pages marked as [the
prosecution's] Exhibit "H".25
On
7
stipulations,
1.
August·
2007,
the
parties
made
additional
VIZ:
That if Mr. Jose Mario Pahang is presented in court,
he will testify that he was the Vice-Mayor of
Antequera, Bohol for the period 2001 to 2004 and as
such· he was the presiding officer of the sessions
conducted by the Sangguniang Bayan of Antequera,
Bohol during that period;
TSN,6 Oct. 2006, pp. 14-15.
TSN, 24 April 2007, PP. 3-4.
DECISION
Crim. Cases Nos. 28243-50
People v. Rebosura
Page 7 of 29
x-------------------------------x
2.
That Resolution No. 2003-55 dated March 10, 2003
pre-marked as Exhibit "CC" entitled "Resolution to
favorably endorse to Hon. Mayor Samuel O. Rebosura
the resolution and petition of Barangay Cansibuan,
Antequera, Bohol requesting/begging the Sangguniang
Bayan and Mayor of Antequera not to issue special
permits on cockfighting within the jurisdiction of
Barangay Cansibuan, Antequera, Bohol" was passed
and approved
by the Sangguniang
Bayan . of
Antequera, Bohol and was duly signed by Mr. Jose
Mario Pahang and his signature having been marked
as Exhibit "CC-l";
3.
That Resolution No. 2002-031 dated February 11,
2002 pre-marked as Exhibit "DD" entitled "Resolution
commending
the Honorable Governor Erico B.
Aumentado, Province of Bohol, for issuing Executive
Order No. 03, prohibiting the conduct of cockfighting
on days other than Sunday" was pC!-ssedand approved
by the Sangguniang Bayan of Antequera, Bohol and
was duly signed by Mr. Jose Mario Pahang and his
signature having been marked as Exhibit "DD-l";
4.
That if the following persons, namely: Marcelo Tolop,
Teodoro Abucay, Esmeraldo Corises, the Barangay
Chairman
of Canlaas, Antequera, Bohol, Ireneo
Bahalla, Lucio Pagod, Simeon Lanoste and Severina
Maglana will be presented in court, they will testify
that they were issued Mayor's Special Permits premarked as Exhibits "P", "Q" , "R", "S", "T", "U", "V" and
"W" by herein Samuel O. Rebosura.26
On 5 September 2007, the prosecution
its documentary
formally offered
evidence27 which the Court admitted
in its
Resolution dated 4 December 2007.28
The
defense
presented
several
witnesses29
affidavits served as their direct testimony
whose
subject to
examination, thus:
Order dated 7 August 2007 (record, pp. 245-246).
Record, pp. 249-370.
Record, p. 376-A.
The Court will no longer summarize the testimonies of two of these witnesses for
being irrelevant and immaterial.
Thus, Esmeraldo Coresis (TSN, 6 May 2008,
morning session), whose affidavit served as his direct testimony, stated in his
affidavit that no cockfights took place on 18 February 2001,31
March 2001 and
26 May 2001. These dates are not included in any of the indictments;
hence,
DECISION
Crim. Cases Nos. 28243-50
People v. Rebosura
Page 8 of 29
x-------------------------------x
For Criminal Case No. 28243
JOVENTINO ADTOON affirmed the truthfulness
of his
Joint Affidavit dated 5 April 2006 (exhibit "9"), which he signed
with
Bonifacio
Arancana,
Romualdo
Docdoc
and
Eutemio
Arangose, and which provides that -They are natives of barangay Sto. Rosario, Antequera,
Bohol and that sometime on the first week of April 2001, one
Marcelo Tolop, a resident of said barangay, approached and
informed them that there shall be a cockfight in their
barangayon 10 April 2001 and 12 April 2001.
That in the afternoon of 10 April 2001, the affiants,
who were cockfighting aficionados, agreed to meet at Tolop's
house bringing with them their fighting cocks. However,
they were not able to proceed to the venue of the cockfight
because it was raining then; hence, the cockfight was
cancelled.
On 12 April 2001, affiants met again at Tolop's house
bringing with them the same fighting cocks they brought on
10 April 2001 but before they proceeded to the place where
the cockfight was to be held, it rained again in an on-and-off
manner so that when they reached the said venue, they
found out that the people went to their respective homes
because of the rain; hence; no cockfight was held.
The said cockfights on the aforecited scheduled dates
on 10 and 12 April 2001 were cancelled and never occurred
because of the rain as the area where it was to be conducted
was an open area without any cover or roof.3D
On cross-examination,
however, Adtoon stated
that the
cockfight was to be held in the town of Antequera; which had a
roof but in an open area, and not in Barangay Sto. Rosario. He
also stated that the month of April was rainy season.
31
irrelevant
insofar as these cases are concerned.
The same goes true for
InoCt~ntes Samuya (TSN, 6 May 2008, morning session) who mentioned in his
affidavit that no cockfights took place on 11 January 2001, 16 January
2001,
12 April 2001 (in barangay Bantolinao) and 4 June 2001. Again, these dates are
not included in any of the indictments.
Furthermore,
while Criminal Case No.
28244 includes 12 April 2001, this refers to the cockfight that was to take place
in barangay Tupas and not barangay Bantolinao.
See also TSN, 6 May 2008 (afternoon session) , pp. 28-29.
TSN, 6 May 2008, pp. 31-33.
DECISION
Crim. Cases Nos. 28243-50
People v. Rebosura
Page 9 of 29
x-------------------------------x
MARCOS SUMABONG affirmed the truthfulness
of his
Joint Affidavit dated 6 April 2006 (exhibit "6"), which he signed
with Apolinario
Pilongco
and
Regino Millanar,
and
which
states that -They are natives of barangay Tupas, Antequera, Bohol
and that sometime on the first week of April 2001, one
Teodoro Abucay, a resident of said barangay, approached
and informed them that there shall be a cockfight to be held
on 12 April 2001 at the Centro of their barangay. In the
morning of 12 April 2001, it already started raining in an onand-off manner and in the afternoon of the same date, they
managed to meet at the house of Regino Millanar bringing
along with them their fighting cocks with high hopes that the
rain will soon stop but until late in the afternoon of that
same day, the rain continued to pour; hence, the cockfight
was cancelled.
On the third week of April 2001, Teodoro Abucay again
informed them than on 20 April 2001, the cockfight that was
previously cancelled will push through this time; but then
again the weather was not favorable as it was raining then,
the same weather condition as what had happened on 12
"April 2001; hence, the scheduled cockfight was again
cancelled.
On the last week of April" 2001, Teodoro Abucay
informed then again that on 26 April 2001, a cockfight shall
be held at the Centro of their barangay for accordingly, he
was able to secure a permit for the purpose. As cockfighting
aficionados, they prepared their fighting cocks and in the
afternoon of 26 April 2001, they agreed to meet at the house
of Regino Millanar and stayed thereat before they proceeded
to the place where the cockfight will be held. It was raining
again in an on-and-off manner till late in the afternoon so
that when they reached the venue, they found out that the
people had gone home because of the rain and said cockfight
was again cancelled for the third time.
The scheduled
cocp.=fightsnever occurred because of the rainy weather as
the area where it was to be conducted was an open area
without any cover or roof.32
BERTILIO Q. TONGCO affirmed the truthfulness
Affidavit dated 28 February
of his
2006 (exhibit "2") that he was the
DECISION
Crim. Cases Nos. 28243-50
People v. Rebosura
Page 10 of 29
x-------------------------------x
Barangay
Captain of Barangay Tupas in 2001 and that there
was no cockfighting in said barangay
that
said date
herein).
is not included
on 5 April 2001
(note
in any of the Informations
On the witness stand, Tongco additionally stated that
the place where he lives is very near the center of the barangay
and that he was not aware of any cockfights on 12, 20 and 26
April 2001.33
For Criminal Case No. 28246
ADLAI DELA CUESTA, a barangay
affirmed the truthfulness
treasurer
in 2002,34
of his Joint Affidavit dated 4 April
2006 (exhibit "8"), which he signed with Ambrosio Bolinao and
Bonifacio Coquilla, and which states that -In 2002, they were barangay officials of Barangay
Canlaas, Antequera, Bohol. As officers of the barangay, they
knew for a fact that their barangay captain needed to have a
fund raising activity to augment funding requirements of
several projects and this will be undertaken by the barangay
by conducting a cockfight. The cockfights were scheduled on
3 June 2002 and 19 September 2002. As supporters of the
noble purpose of the barangay captain, they made
themselves available on said dates but heavy rains prevented
the said activity to be realized. Thus, the cockfights on the
scheduled dates were cancelled and never occurred because
of the rain since the area where it was to be conducted was
an open area without any cover or roof.35
For Criminal Case No. 28247
ANTONIO ALERIA affirmed the truthfulness
of his Joint
Affidavit dated 3 April 2006 (exhibit "7"), which he signed with
Zozimo Terobias,
Proceso Labado' and Romeo Gastones,
which states that -They are natives of barangay Cansibuan, Antequera, .
Bohol and that sometime on the last week of November
2002, one Ireneo Bahalla, a resident of said barangay,
TSN, 5 May 2008, pp. 5-6.
TSN, 6 May 2008 (afternoon
See also pp. 13-14.
session),
p. 16.
a
DECISION
Crim. Cases Nos. 28243-50
People v. Rebosura .
Page 11 of 29
x-------------------------------x
approached and informed them that there shall be a
cockfight to be held on 28 November 2002 in their barangay.
In the afternoon of 28 November, they met at the residence
of Dahalla bringing along with them their fighting cocks;
however, they were not able to proceed to the venue of the
cockfight as it was raining, hence, the cockfight was
cancelled. The scheduled cockfight never occurred because
of the rain as the area where it was to be conducted was an
open area without any cover or roof.36
For Criminal Case No. 28248
NERIO PANA affirmed the truthfulness
of his Joint
Affidavit dated 3 April 2006 (exhibit" 10"), which he signed
with Jaime Paiia, Magdaleno Lomotos and Sulpicio Monteron,
and whirh states that -They werebarangay officials of barangay Bantolinao,
Antequera, Bohol and were concerned with the development
and welfare of the residents of their barangay. Sometime 15
April 2003, one Lucio Pagod, a resident of their. barangay,
invited them to attend a hack-fight to be held at Purok 5 of
barangay Bantolinao.
As cockfighting aficionados, they
agreed to meet at the house of Lucio Pagod on the afternoon
of said date. However, while at Pagod's house, they were not
able to proceed to the cockfight because it was raining then.
It was only after the rain subsided that they proceeded to the
venue and they saw that the cockfight was cancelled because
of the rain as the area where it was to be conducted was an
open area without any cover or roof.37
For Criminal Case No. 28249
In addition
to the statements
he made in his Joint
Affidavit (exhibit "7") relative to Criminal Case No.28247,
ANTONIOALERIAalso stated that -On the first week of February 2003, a certain Simeon
Lamoste informed them that a cockfight shall be held on 13
February 2003 at the Centro of Cansibuan for he had
secured accordingly the necessary. permit for the said
cockfighting activity.
As cockfighting aficionados, they
prepared their fighting cocks and in the afternoon of 13
February 2003, they agreed to meet at the house of Romeo
Gas~ones but before they proceeded to the place where the
See also TSN 6 May 2008 (afternoon session), pp. 21-22.
See also TSN 6 May 2008 (afternoon session), pp. 4-11.
DECISION
Crim. Cases Nos. 28243-50
People v. Rebosura
Page 12 of 29
x-------------------------------x
cockfight will be held, it was raining again in an on-and-off
manner, so that when they reached the said venue they
found out that the people had gone home because of the
rain. The scheduled cockfight never occurred because of the
rainy weather as the area where it was to be conducted was
an open area without any cover or roof.38
For Criminal Case No. 28250
CRISOLOGOREFESADAaffirmed the truthfulness
of his
Joint Affidavit dated 3 April 2006 (exhibit "11")",which he
signed with Ceferina Tatad and Nicanor Equizabal, and which
states that -They are natives of barangay Cansibuan, Antequera,
Bohol and that sometime on the last week of February 2003,
one Severina
Maglana,
a resident
of said barangay,
approached
and informed them that there shall be a
cockfight to be held on 27 February 2003 at the Centro of
their barangay.
As cockfighting aficionados, they prepared
their fighting cocks and in the afternoon of 27 February
2003, they agreed to meet at the house of Crisologo Refesada
considering that their house is near the Centro but before
they proceeded to the place where the cockfight will be held,
it was raining again in an on-and-off manner, so that when
they reached the said venue they found out that the people
had gone home because of the rain. The scheduled cockfight
was cancelled and never occurred because of that rain as the
area where it was to be conducted was an open area, without
any cover or roof. 39
For all criminal cases
and stated that he served as mayor of Antequera for three
terms (1998-2007).40
He also affirmed the contents
of his
Counter-Affidavit/ Answer dated 12 November 2003 (exhibit··
"1" for the defense; exhibit "X" for the prosecution) which \
See also TSN, 6 May 2008 (afternoon session), pp. 22-26.
See also TSN, 5 May 2008, pp. 16-18.
TSN, 7 May 2008, p. 8.
DECISION
Crim. Cases Nos. 28243-50
People v. Rebosura
Page 13 of 29
x-------------------------------x
The cases against accused have no basis in fact and in
law since complainant Coquilla had not been telling the
whole truth. Coquilla used to be accused's party mate in
past elections, including the 2001 ekctions where Coquilla
lost. They used to be politically close but now Coquilla had
crossed over to the other political' group. In the barangay
elections of 2002, Coquilla ran and won as barangay captain
of Poblacion, Antequera, Boho!. He then aspired but lost the
position of the Association of Barangay Councils (ABC) of
Antequera, garnering only one (his own) vote. His opponent
was accused's mother who had been a barangay captain of
barangay Can-omay, Antequera, Bohol for more than 20
years, and had been the incumbent ABC President of their
town before accused entered politics.
Accused is not a cockfighting aficionado and the
cockpit in Antequera, Bohol is located in a place far from the
national highway. He therefore has no knowledge if and
when a cockfight is held thereat. Furthermore, what he has
learned and known even before he entered local politics is
that the Antequera cockpit has been operating since way
back even during the time of former mayor Felipe Gementiza
and that it is not owned by accused or his family. He
understands
that since he took over as Mayor from
Gementiza, the Antequera cockpit arena had not been
operating (hence, without any permit) because there was a
conflict between its management and the aficionados on the
payment of bets. On account of the fact that there is no
licensed cockpit in the municipality, what was done (and this
practice started during the time of Mayor Gementiza) was
that the mayor will issue SPECIAL PERMITS for cockfighting
sponsored
by .' the Sangguniang
Barangay
of certain
barangays who need· to raise funds for their operations,
limited to one day only. This was also granted to Purok
applicants, as the barangays have been divided into different
puroks in order to expedite the delivery of services to his
constituents as well as to further strengthen peace and order
mechanism and enforcement.
Accused is of the belief that P.D. No. 449 has been
effectively repealed by Section 447 of the Local Government
Code of 1991 and that all the cockfights were done in
substantial compliance with the law.
Accused is not a cockfighting aficionado and he does
not attend cockfights. If ever there was a cockfight held at
the Antequera cockpit on 17 April 2003, he had no
DECISION
Crim. Cases Nos. 28243-50
People v. Rebosura
Page 14 of 29
x-------------------------------x
knowledge of such activity. It is the primary duty of the
complainant Coquilla as barangay captain of the barangay
where the cockfight was held, if indeed there was one.
Coquilla neither reported nor complained the matter to the
accused.
It is accused's belief that the cases filed were .
politically motivated and that the affidavit of former Mayor
Gementiza, who was bent on running against him in the
2004 elections, only affirms this fact.
Accused additionally stated that he could not be liable
under the indictments as the special permits that he issued
were for fund-raising purposes.42
The barangay, the purok
and the residents approached him for fund-raising through
cockfights so he issued
the permits
like what
the
last
administration had done.43 The cockfights were to be held on
SundaY8 and the income to be derived therefrom would go to
the sponsoring barangay.44 Furthermore, the cockfights were
to be held at the town's cockpit.45 No actual cockfighting took
place however as it was La Nina or rainy season during those
times.46
When asked to explain why the special permits that he
issued stated that the cockfights were to be held in places
other than the town's cockpit, accused explained that this was
the faulL of his secretary since there was actually a verbal
agreement between him and the sponsoring barangay or purok
that the cockfight will be held in the town's cockpit area.47 He
thus affixed his signatures
TSN, 7 May 2008, pp. 7; 21.
Id. at 7.
Id. at 17.
rd. at 7.
Id. aL 10.
Id at 15-16 ..
on the special permits withou
DECISION
Crim. Cases Nos. 28243-50
People v. Rebosura
Page 15 of 29
x-------------------------------x
noticing
their
content
as
his
secretary
had
already
countersigned these perrriits.48
On
30
May
2008,
accused
formally
offered
his
documentary evidence consisting of exhibits" 1" to "11" which
the Court admitted (except for exhibit "5", there being no
testimony thereon and the authenticity
of which was not
established during trial) in its Resolution dated 9 July 2008.49
Cockfighting, or sabong in local parlance, has a long and
storied tradition in Philippine culture and was prevalent even
during the Spanish occupation.50
When the newly-arrived
Americans proceeded to organize a governmental structure in
the Philippines, they recognized cockfighting as an activity
that needed to be regulated, and it was deemed that it was the
local municipal council that was best suited to oversee such
regulation.51
requirements
In the 1970s, the desire for stricter licensing
of cockpits started to see legislative fruit and
P.D. 449 enacted several of these restrictions.52
Section 5 (d)
of said law, under which accused is being charged, provides:
SECTION 5. Cockpits and Cockfighting: In General. -
(d)
Holding of cockfights. - Except as provided in
this Decree, cockfighting shall be allowed only in licensed
cockpits during Sundays and legal holidays and during local
fiestas for not more than three days. It may also be held
TSN, 7 May 2008, p.17.
Record, p. 435.
Tan v. Perefia, supra note 1 at 69.
Id.
Id. at 70.
DECISION
Crim. Cases Nos. 28243-50
People v. Rebosura
Page 16 of 29
x-------------------------------x
during provincial, city or municipal, agricultural, commercial
or industrial fair, carnival or exposition for a similar period
of three days upon resolution of the province, city or
municipality where such fair, carnival or exposition is to be
held, subject to the approval of the Chief of Constabulary or
his authorized representative: Provided, that, no cockfighting
on the occasion of such fair, carnival or exposition shall be
allowed within the month of a local fiesta or for more than
two occasions a year in the same city or municipality:
Provided, further, that no cockfighting shall be held on
December 30 (Rizal Day), June 12 (Philippine Independence
Day), November 30 (National Heroes Day), holy Thursday,
Good Friday, Election or Referendum Day and during
Registration Days for such election or referendum.
The first
accused
order
of business
can be held liable under
is to determine
whether
P.D. 449 since it is his
contention
that said law has been repealed by Section 447 of
RA 7160
or the
Local Government
Code
of 1991 which'
Section
447.
Powers,
Duties,
Functions
and
Compensation. (a) The sangguniang bayan, as the legislative
body of the municipality, shall enact ordinances, approve
resolutions and appropriate funds for the general welfare of
the municipality and its inhabitants pursuant to Section 16
of this Code and in the proper exercise of the corporate
powers of the municipality as provided for under Section 22
of this Code, and shall:
(3)
Subject to the provisions of Book II of this Code,
grant franchises, enact ordinances authorizing the
issuance of permits or licenses, or enact ordinances
levying taxes, fees and charges upon such conditions
and for such purposes intended to promote the general
welfare of the inhabitants of the municipality, and
pursuant to this legislative authority shall: .
Any law to the contrary notwithstanding,
authorize and license the establishment,
operation, and maintenance of cockpits,
and regulate cockfighting and commercial
breeding of gamecocks; Provided, that
existing rights should not be prejudiced;
DECISION
Crim. Cases Nos. 28243-50
People v. Rebosura
Page 17 of 29
x-------------------------------x
The
Supreme
Court
in
Tan v. Perena53
already
had
occasion to rule on whether RA 7160 has repealed provisions
of PD 449, thus:
...
while the Local Government Code expressly repealed
several laws, the Cockfighting Law was not among them.
Section 534(f) of the Local Government Code declares that all
general and special laws or decrees inconsistent with the.
Code are hereby repealed or modified accordingly, but such
clause is not an express repealing clause because it fails to
identify or designate the acts that are intended to be
repealed. It is a: cardinal rule in statutory construction that
implied repeals are disfavored and will not be so declared
unless the intent of the legislators .is manifest. As laws are
presumed to be passed with deliberation and with knowledge
of all existing ones on the subject, it is logical to conclude
that in passing a statute it is not intended to interfere with
or abrogate a former law relating to the same subject matter,
unless the repugnancy between the two is not only
irreconcilable but also clear and convincing as a result of the
lan§,uage used, or unless the latter Act fully embraces the
subject matter of the earlier.54
Tan
v. Perena
involved
the
proper
interpretation
of
Section 5 (b) of P.D. 449 (which provides for the general rule
that
only
one
municipality).
cockpit
be
allowed
rule
under
irreconcilable
PD 449
of cockpit operation in the country.
phrase
each
city
or
was
not
clearly
and
with Section 447 (a) (3) (v) of RA
7160 given the history of laws pertaining
the
in
The Supreme Court ruled that the one-cockpit-
per-municipality
convincingly
shall
"any law to the
to the authorization
The High Court held that
contrary
notwithstanding"
in
Section 447 (a) (3) (v) of RA 7160 serves notice that the powe
to authorize
and
maintenance
of cockpits
thus:
Supra note 1.
Id at 68-69.
license
the establishment,
operation
lies with the Sangguniang
an
Bayan,
DECISION
Crim. Cases Nos. 28243-50
People v. Rebosura
Page 18 of 29
x-------------------------------x
. . . Considering that Section 447(a)(3)(v)speaks essentially
of the identity of the wielder of the power of control and
supervision over cockpit operation, it is not inconsistent with
previous enactments that impose restrictions on how such
power may be exercised. In short, there is no dichotomy
between affirming the power and subjecting it to limitations
at the same time.
We do not doubt, however, the ability of the national
government to implement police power measures that affect
the subjects of municipal government, especially if the
subject of regulation is a condition of universal character
irrespective of territorial jurisdictions. Cockfighting is one
such condition. It is a traditionally regulated activity, due to
the attendant gambling involved or maybe even the fact that
it essentially consists of two birds killing each other for
public amusement. Laws have been enacted restricting the
days when cockfights could be held, and legislation has even
been emphatic that cockfights could not be held on holidays
celebrating national honor such as Independence Day and
Rizal Day.
The Whereas clauses of the Cockfighting Law
emphasize that cockfighting "should neither be exploited as
an object of commercialism or business enterprise, nor made
a tool of uncontrolled gambling, but more as a vehicle for the
preservation and perpetuation of native Filipino heritage and
thereby enhance our national identity." The obvious thrust of
our laws designating when cockfights could be held is to
limit cockfighting and imposing the one-cockpit-permunicipality rule is in line with that aim. Cockfighting is a
valid matter of police power regulation, as it is a form of
gambling essentially antagonistic to the aims of enhancing
national productivity and self-reliance. Xxx55
With the foregoing disquisition, there can be no doubt
that Section 5 (d) of PD 449 remains good law. The Court can
therefore proceed with the central issue of whether or not the
prosecution has established accused's criminal liability undet
Section 5 (d) of PD 449, as amended by PD 1602, beyond
reasonable doubt.
DECISION
Crim. Cases Nos. 28243-50
People v. Rebosura
Page 19 of 29
x-------------------------------x
The restrictions imposed by Section 5 (d) of PD 449 on
the conduct of cockfighting are as follows:
1.
Subject to Section 5 (e), cockfights shall be allowed only ..
in licensed cockpits;
2.
Subject to Section 5 (e), cockfights shall be allowed only
during Sundays and legal holidays and during fiestas;
provided that no cockfighting shall be held on December
30 (Rizal Day), June 12 (Philippine Independence
Day),
November 30 (National Heroes Day), Holy Thursday,
Good Friday, Election or Referendum Day and during
Registration Days for such election or referendum.
3.
Cockfights shall be allowed for a period of not more than
. three days; and
4.
Cockfights may also be held during provincial, city or
municipal,
agricultural,
commercial or industrial
fair,
carnival or exposition for a similar period of three days
upon resolution
of the province, city or municipality
where such fair, carnival or exposition is to be held,
subject to the approval of the Chief of Constabulary or
his
authorized
representative56:
Provided,
that,
no
cockfighting on the occasion of such fair, carnival or
exposition shall be allowed within the month of a local
fiesta or for more than two occasions a year in the sam \
\
city or municipality.
DECISION
Crim. Cases Nos. 28243-50
People v. Rebosura
Page 20 of 29
x----------------~--------------x
In herein
permits
cases,
accused
IS
being charged
of issuing
for cockfights (a) outside a licensed cockpit; (b) on a
day that is not allowed by law; and (c) not on the occasion of a
local fiesta.
57
The permits, which accused does not deny having issued,
show the following pertinent information:
28243
"P"
10 April 2001
2
BARANGAY
(where
cockfight
will be held)
Sto. Rosario
28244
"Q"
10 April 2001
3
Tupas
12, 20& 26 April
2001
28245
"R"
11 June 2001
1
Canlaas.
13 June 2002
28246
"8"
18 Sept. 2002
1
Ca:nlaas
19 Sept. 2002
28247
"T"
27 Nov. 2002
1
Cansibuan
28 Nov. 2002
28248
"U"
14 April 2003
1
Bantolinao
15 April 2003
28249
"V"
12 Feb. 2003
1
Cansibuan
13 Feb. 2003
28250
"W"
27 Feb. 2003
1
Cansibuan
27 Feb. 2003
CASE (Exhibit
NO. Number)
DATE OF
NO.
PERMIT
OF
DAYS
COCKFIGHT
DATES
10 & 12 April 2001
The evidence shows that accused violated Section 5 (d) of
PD 449 when he issued the aforementioned
permits.
all time material to these cases, the municipality
did not have a licensed cockpit.
the prosecution,
First, at
of Antequera
Coquilla, the main witness for
testified that Antequera's
existing cockpit was
operating illegally since 1999 when its license to operate wa
not renewed.
Accused admits as much as can be gleaned from
his exhibit" I" (Counter-Affidavit/Answer
dated
12 November
2003) direct testimony.
57
Except for Crim. Case No. 28245 which does not include the clause "nor on the
occasion of a local fiesta as provided for under said PD 449, as amended"
e
DECISION
Crim. Cases Nos. 28243-50
People v. Rebosura
Page 21 of 29
x-------------------------------x
Second, the Court takes judicial notice of the fact that
the scheduled
cockfights did not fall on a Sunday or during a
legal holiday allowed by law for cockfighting.
or not a particular
is capable
Verily, whether
day falls on a Sunday or on a legal holiday
of unquestionable
public knowledge.
Thus,
S8
demonstration
and is even of·
10 April 2001 and 15 April 2003
fell on a Tuesday; 20 April 2001 a Friday; while 12 April 2001,
26
April 2001,
13 June
2002,
19 September
2002,
November 2002, 13 February 2003 and 27 February
fell on a Thursday.
Likewise, the aforementioned
28
2003 all
dates do not
fall on any of the legal holidays for which the law allows the
holding of cockfights.
S9
Finally, there was no fiesta on the aforementioned
as
the
parties
Antequera,
had
stipulated
Bohol, i.e., including
jurisdiction,
celebrates
its
that
"the
municipality
all the barangays
annual
town
dates
fiesta
of
within its
every
last
Saturday of October."
PD 1602, which amends PD 449 and which prescribes for
stiffer penalties
on illegal gambling, makes it unlawful for any
person, "who in any manner xxx shall directly or indirectly take
part
in any
illegal or unauthorized
cockfighting xxx.
))60
activities
or games
of
When accused issued the eight permits to
See Section 2, Rule 129, Rules of Court.
These are: New Year's Day (1 January); Araw ng Kagitingan (9 April); Labor Day
(1 May); Bonifacio Day (30 November) and Christmas Day (25 December).
SECTION 1.
Penalties. - The following penalties are hereby imposed:
(al
The penalty of prision correccional in its medium period or a fine ranging
from one thousand to six thousand pesos, and in case of recidivism, the penalty
of prision mayor in its medium period or a fine ranging from five thousand to ten
thousand pesos shall be imposed upon:
DECISION
Crim. Cases Nos. 28243-50
People v. Rebosura
Page 22 of 29
x-------------------------------x
hold cockfights on prohibited
days and despite the fact that
the municipality did not have a licensed cockpit, it can be said
that he had directly or indirectly taken part in the holding of
illegal cockfights.
(1)
Anv person other than those referred to in the succeeding
sub-sections who in any manner, shall directly or indirectly take part in
any illegal or unauthorized activities or games of cockfighting, jueteng, jai-
alai or horse racing to include bookie operations
and game fixing, numbers,
bingo and other forms of lotteries; cara y cruz, pompiang and the like; 7-11 and
any game using dice; black jack, lucky nine, poker and its derivatives, monte,
baccarat,
cuajo, pangguingue
and other card games; paik que, high and low,
mahjong,
domino and other games using plastic tiles and the like; slot
machines, roulette, pinball and other mechanical contraptions
and devices; dog
racing, boat racing, car racing and other forms of races, basketball,
boxing,
volleyball, bowling, pingpong and other forms of individual or team contests to
include
game fixing, point shaving
and other machinations;
banking
or
percentage game, or any other game or scheme, whether upon chance or skill,
wherein wagers consisting of money, articles of value or representative
of value
are at stake or made;
(2)
Any person who shall knowingly permit any form of gambling
referred to in the preceding subparagraph
to be carried on in inhabited
or
uninhabited
place or in any building, vessel or other means of transportation
owned or controlled by him. If the place where gambling is carried on has a
repu~ation of a gambling place or that prohibited gambling is frequently carried
on therein, or the place is a public or government building or barangay hall,the
malefactor shall be punished by prision correccional in its maximum period and
a fine of six thousand pesos.
(b)
The penalty of prision correccional in its maximum period or a fine of six
thousand pesos shall be imposed upon the maintainer or conductor of the above
gambling schemes.
(c)
The penalty of pnslOn mayor in its medium period with temporary
absolute disqualification
or a fine of six thousand pesos shall be imposed if the
maintainer,
conductor
or banker of said gambling schemes is a government
official, or where such government
official is the player, promoter,
referee,
umpire, judge orcoach in case of game fixing, point shaving and machination.
(d)
The penalty of pdsion correccional in its medium period or a fine ranging
from four hundred to two thousand
pesos shall be imposed upon any person
who shall, knowingly and without lawful purpose in any hour of any day,
poss~ss any lottery list, paper or other matter containing letters, figures, signs
or symbols pertaining to or in any manner used in the games of jueteng, jai-alai
or horse racing bookies, and similar games of lotteries and numbers which have
taken place or about to take place.
(e)
The penalty of temporary absolute disqualifications
shall be imposed
upon any barangay official who, with knowledge of the existence of a gambling
house or place in his jurisdiction
fails to abate the same or take action in
connection therewith.
(f)
The penalty of pnSlOn correccional
in its maximum
period or a fine
ranging from five hundred pesos to two thousand pesos shall be imposed upon
any security officer, security guard, watchman,
private or house detective of
hotels, villages, buildings, enclosures and the like which have the reputation of a
gambling place or where gambling activities are being held.
DECISION
Crim. Cases Nos. 28243-50
People v. Rebosura
Page 23 of 29
x-------------------------------x
In his defense,
which
he
issued
accused
special
claims that
permits
According to his witnesses,
did
the cockfights
not
push
area
without
any
through.
it was raining intermittently
those days and since the cockfights were to beheld
cover or roof, the
rains
for
during
in an open
prevented
the
cockfights from proceeding.
On the other hand,
Coquilla positively testified that he
personally
witnessed
barangays
of Sto. Rosario, Tupas,
Bantolinao
permits
about
and that
eight or more cockfights
thereafter,
for the holding
Canlaas,
in the
Cansibuan
and
he was able to secure
of these
cockfights
the
which were all
issued by the accused.61
The Court gives more weight and credence to Coquilla's
testimony over those of the witnesses for the defense.
was the principal
regulating
that
he
sponsor
cockfighting
was
vigilant
Moreover,
evidence
corro borating
cockfights were rampant
2002-031
(exhibit
of Municipal
Ordinance
in Antequera
so it stands
in monitoring
compliance
there
is independent
.Coquilla's
testimony
in Antequera.
"DD") of
the
Coquilla
No. 11
to reason
with
said
documentary
that
illegal
Thus, Resolution
Sangguniang
Bayan
Antequera is a resolution entitled "Resolution Commending the Hon. Governor Erico B.
Aumentado, Province of Bohol, For Issuing Executive Order
No. 03, Prohibiting the Conduct of Cockfighting on Days
Other Than Sunday"
No.
of
DECISION
Crim. Cases Nos. 28243-50
People v. Rebosura
Page 24 of 29
x-------------------------------x
". . . the rampant cockfighting operations throughout the
province of Bohol have caused indolence among our people,
aggravating our peace and order problem because this illegal
cockfighting operations have been among the main causes
for robbery and thefts, kidnapping."
Likewise, Resolution
Sangguniang
No. 2003-55
(exhibit "CC") of the
Bayan of Antequera is a resolution to -
"Resolution To Favorably Endorse To Hon. Mayor Samuela.
Rebosura,
the resolution
and petition
of barangay
Cansibuan, Antequera, Bohol Requesting/Begging the SB &
Mayor of Antequera Not To Issue Special Permit On
Cockfighting Within the Jurisdiction of Barangay Cansibuan,
Antequera, Bohol, And This Body Highly Recommend For
Mayor's Favorable Action of Their Request/Petition"
Pitted
against
Affidavits of several
the
foregoing
residents
evidence
of Antequera
are
the
which
Joint
surfaced
only in 2006, or three years after Coquilla first reported
the
matter of the illegal cockfights to the governor of Bohol. Before
2006,
there
was never
any intimation
accused
that
the
permits,
were
cancelled.
testified
In a straightforward
deportment
cockfights,
on the
for which
Moreover,
of the defense
witnesses
he issued
unlike
manner,
part
the
of the
special
Coquilla
who
demeanor
and
who testified
on their
affidavits do not inspire belief.
It is doctrinal
number
of witnesses
witnesses
the truth
IS established
not by the
but by the quality of their testimonies
are to be weighed, not numbered.62
determination
of witnesses
but
their
and quality of their testimonies.63
as
Indeed, in the
of the sufficiency of evidence, what matters
not the number
nature
that
credibility
and
is'
the
Thus, the testimony
Ceniza-Manahan v. People, G.R. No. 156248, 28 Aug. 2007, 531 SCRA 364, 373374.
Id.
DECISION
Crim. Cases Nos. 28243-50
People v. R€Josura .
Page 25 of 29
x-------------------------------x
of a lon~ witness,
if found positive and credible by the trial
court, is sufficient to support a conviction especially when the
testimony bears the earmarks of truth and sincerity.
Accused
additionally
argues,
nothing illegal in his issuance
cockfights
Thus,
as these
in his
however,
that
there
of the special permits
Answer
dated
was
to hold
purposes.55
were done for fund-raising
Counter-Affidavit/
54
12 November
2003 (exh. "1"), he stated:
3. lOOn account of the fact that there is no licensed
cockpit in our municipality, what was done in our town was
(and this practice started from before my time by Mayor
Gementiza), the Mayor issues SPECIAL PERMITS for
cockfighting sponsored by the Sannguniang
Barangay
(barangay councils) of certain barangays who need to raise
funds for its operations, limited to one day only. This was
also granted to Purokapplicants,
as we have divided our
barangays into different puroks in order to expedite the
delivery of services to our constituents as well as to further
strengthen
our
peace
and
order
mechanism
and
enforcement. (Underscoring supplied)
In effect, accused
is claiming to fall under
one of the
exceptions
to the general rule on when and where to hold
cockfights.
The exceptions are provided in Section 5 (e) of said
law, to wit:
(e)
Cockfighting for Entertainment of Tourists or for
Charitable Purposes. - Subject to the preceding subsection
hereof,
the
Chief Constabulary
or his
authorized
representative may also allow the holding of cockfighting for
the entertainment of foreign dignitaries or for tourists, or for
returning Filipinos, commonly known as "Balikbayan", or for
the support
of national fund-raising
campaigns
for
charitable purposes as may be authorized by the' Office of
the President, upon resolution of a provincial board, city or
municipal council, in licensed cockpits or in playgrounds or
parks: Provided, that this privilege shall be extended for only
Id. at 374.
See TSN, 7 May 2008,pp.
7,17,21.
DECISION
Crim. Cases Nos. 28243-50
People u. Rebosura
Page 26 of 29
x-------------------------------x
one time, for a period not exceeding three days, within a year
to a province, city, or municipality.
(Underscoring supplied)
To fall under
the exception underscored
above, the
cockfight (a) must be in support of a national fund-raising
campaIgn; (b) as may be authorized
by the Office of the
President; (c) upon resolution of a provincial board, city or
municipal council; (d) in licensed cockpits or in playgrounds
or parks; and (e) provided this privilege shall be extended for
only one time, for a period not exceeding three days, within a
year to a province, city, or municipality.
Accused
purported
has
not presented
fund-raising
requirements
any evidence that
activities of the barangays
the
meet the
of the law. There is no evidence of a national
fund-raising campaign. No evidence of any authority from the
Office of the President. There is likewise no evidence of a
resolution from the municipal council. Verily, it is for accused
to establish his defense in the light of overwhelming evidence
that he had directly or indirectly taken part in illegal or
unauthorized
games of cockfighting when he issued subject
permits without meeting the requirements set by Section 5 (d)
of PD 449.
Additionally, the prosecution isnot
required in this case
to prove the negative of an issue where the facts are more
immediately within the knowledge of the accused.
means
is that
the prosecution
What this
need not prove that
the
purported fund raising campaign is not national in character
or that there is no authority from the Office of the President or
that there is no municipal resolution authorizing such activity
r~
CERTIFIED
DECISION
Crim. Cases Nos. 28243-50
People v. Rebosura
Page 27 of ~9
x --- --- --- -- --- --- --- --- --- -----x
SInce accused
documents
t
TRUE COPY:
ESTELA TERE
TA C. ROSETE
Executive Cte k of Court III,
First iVisi¥
could
readily
disprove
showing authority
these
by producing
from the Office of the President
and from the municipal council.
In this respect, the Supreme
Court has stated that:
The general rule is that if a criminal charge is·
predicated on a negative allegation, or a negative averment is
an essential element of a crime, the prosecution has the
burden to prove the charge. However, this rule admits of
exceptions. Where the negative of an issue does not permit of
direct proof, or where the facts are more immediately within
the knowledge of the accused, the onus probandi rests upon
him. Stated othenuise} it is not incumbent on the prosecution
to adduce positive evidence to support a negative averment
the truth of which is fairly indicated by established
circumstances
and which} if untrue) could readily be
disproved by the production of documents or other evidence
within the defendant's knowledge or control. For example,
where a charge is made that a defendant carried on a certain
business without a license (as in the case at bar, where the
accused is charged with the sale of a regulated drug without
authority), the fact that he has a license is a matter which is
peculiarly within his knowledge and he must establish that
fact or suffer conviction .... 66 (Italics in the original)
IN FINE, the Court is convinced beyond reasonable
as to accused's
liability under
imposition of the appropriate
the eight indictments.
to impose a prison
Under the circumstances
offense of the accused
merit imprisonment
In the
penalty, PD 449, as amended by
PD 1602, gives the Court the discretion
term or a fine.
doubt
is not of such
as compared
of the case, the
character
that would
to other cases encountered
by the Court; hence, in order to temper justice with mercy, it
is inclined to impose the less onerous penalty of fine.
WHEREFORE, premIses
considered,
judgment
is
rendered finding accused Samuel O. Rebosura GUILTYbeyond
reasonable
doubt of eight counts of violation of Section 5 (d) of
Su Zhi Shan v. People, G.R. No. 169933, 9 March 2007, 518 SCRA 48, 63-64
citing People v. Manalo, G.R. No. 107623, 23 Feb. 1994,230 SeRA 309.
\\.[!fA
DECISION
Crim. Cases Nos. 28243-50
People v. Rebosura
Page 28 of 29
x-------------------------------x
Decree No. 449 (or the Cockfighting
Presidential
as
amended
sentences
by Presidential
Decree
No. 1602
Law of 1974),
and
hereby
him to pay for each case a FINE of Six Thousand
Pesos (P 6,000.00) or a total of Forty Eight Thousand
(P48,000.00)
with
subsidiary
imprisonment
In
Pesos
case
of
insolvency.
G.GESMUNDO
Associate Justice
-0<.,1'I
ss
~,
\
'. G~T~EZ
e~AI'"
Chairperson
I attest that the conclusions in the above Decision were
reached in consultation before tHe c se was assigned to the
writer of the opinion of the Court'~ Di sion.
, ....v,~
NOR~ER
P Y.' G~LDEi
Chairersan:; First-rfwision
DECISION
Crim. Cases Nos. 28243-50
People v. Rebosura
Page 29 of 2g
x-------------------------------x
CERTIFICATION
Pursuant to Article VIII, Section 13 of the Constitution,
and the Division Chairperson's
Attestation,
it is hereby
certified that the conclusions in the above Decision were
reached in consultation before the case was assigned to the
writer of the opinion of the Court's Division.
~~Aq~
EDILBERTO G. SANDOVAL
Acting Presiding Justice
.. ~