People v. Dionisio y Cruz, G.R. No. L-25513, March 27, 1968

REYES, J.B.L., Actg. C.J.:

Doctrine:

The fact that the punishment authorized by the statute, is severe does not make it cruel and unusual. Expressed in other terms, it has been held that to come under the ban, the punishment must be "flagrantly and plainly oppressive," "wholly disproportionate to the nature of the offense as to shock the moral sense of the community."

Facts:

ROSAURO DIONISIO, appellant herein, was charged with having violated Republic Act No. 3063 before the Court of First Instance of Manila in an information filed by the Assistant City Fiscal in this wise:

          That on or about the 19th day of August, 1962, in the City of Manila, Philippines, the said accused, a person who is not duly authorized in any capacity by the Games and Amusement Board to conduct a horse race, did then and there wilfully and unlawfully offer, arrange and collect bets for the Special Daily Double Race being then conducted at the Sta. Ana Racing Club at Makati, Rizal, and for that purpose has in possession the following, to wit: cash money in the amount of P8.50, one Nueva Era Racing Program, dated Aug. 19, 1962, one list of bets, one ballpen and one booklet of Daily Double receipt.

          On being arraigned, accused waived his right to be assisted by counsel, and pleaded not guilty to the charge.

However, when the case was finally called for trial, accused voluntarily waive his right to be assisted by counsel, withdrew his former plea of not guilty and pleaded guilty to the information charging him with violation of Rep. Act No. 3063

  Violation of the Act is sanctioned by "a fine of not less than one thousand pesos nor more than two thousand pesos or by imprisonment for not less than one month or more than six months, or both, in the discretion of the Court." (R. A. 954, Sec. 1, as amended by R. A. 3063, sec. 2).

Issue: Whether the penalty as applied to his offense infringes the constitutional provision

Ruling: No.

  To bolster his position, appellant argues that the provided penalty is harsh, the true measure of the gravity of any offense being its effects, if unchecked, upon the well-being of the people and the body politic. The premise can be granted, without the conclusion being true or correct.

    Neither fines nor imprisonment constitute in themselves cruel and unusual punishment, for the constitutional stricture has been interpreted as referring to penalties that are inhuman and barbarous, or shocking to the conscience (Weems vs. U.S., 217 U. S. 349) and fines or imprisonment are definitely not in this category.

Nor does mere severity constitute cruel and unusual punishment.

What evils should be corrected as pernicious to the body politic, and how correction should be done, is a matter primarily addressed to the discretion of the legislative department, not of the courts; and the view that unsupervised gambling is definitely detrimental to the nation and its citizens counts with respectable support. "The hope of large or easy gain, obtained without special effort, turns the head of the workman, and habitual gambling is a cause of laziness and ruin." (Planiol, Droit Civil, Vol. 2, No. 2110). "The social scourge of gambling must be stamped out. The laws against gambling must be enforced to the limit." (Peo. vs. Gorostiza, 77 Phil. 88)