LAPITAN V. PCSO No. 28228, 60 O.G. 6841 • 15 October 1963 • J. Lucero Petitioner: Jose Lapitan Respondent: Philippine Charity Sweepstakes Office (PCSO) QUICK DIGEST: Lapitan bought one share of a winning ticket (which was divided into four). He only had with him a mutilated ticket to evidence the fact that he owns the share. The PCSO refused to release the payment to Lapitan since he did not establish that the mutilated ticket was Ticket No. 073522. The CFI and the CA agreed with the PCSO. The CA noted that the testimonies given by the plaintiff were self-serving, and that the writing down of the number of the ticket was “not in accord with the ordinary course of human behavior.” The SC ruled in favor of Lapitan and stated that the action of Lapitan (in writing down the ticket number) supports the principle of res gestae. Moreover, a testimony should not be rejected for being self-serving merely because it had been given by an interested party, especially where it is not contradicted by direct or circumstantial evidence and, upon the whole, appears to be plausible. FACTS: 1. On 2 June 1958, PCSO drew winning ticket number 073522. This ticket was divided into four shares, with a total prize of Php 100,000.00. 2. Lapitan went to PCSO on 7 August 1958 with a mutilated ticket, claiming to be the holder of one share. 3. PCSO presented the mutilated ticket to the National Bureau of Investigation (NBI) and requested for a lab test. NBI reported that the mutilation made it physically impossible to ascertain the ticket number. 4. PCSO refused to effect payment of the Php 25,000 (1/4 of the prize), based on the NBI report. 5. Lapitan filed this collection case with the Court of First Instance. 6. The CFI held that Lapitan was not able to establish that the mutilated ticket bears Serial No. 073522. 7. Lapitan appealed the case, and conteded that the CFI erred in holding that Lapitan did not duly establish that the mutilated ticket bears Serial No. 073522. PCSO argued that the assignment of error of Lapitan was a question of fact that the lower court has decided against, based on the CFI’s findings, which were substantiated by evidence. The CFI expressed the same view as the PCSO. 8. Issues NOT disputed: that a. Petronillo Ajon, a sweepstake agent, purchased four (4) booklets of sweepstake tickets for the June 2 lottery, one of which contained tickets bearing Serial Nos. 073520 to 073529 b. Among his customers were Alvarez, Malana, and Lapitan c. Holders of the four shares: Malana (1/4), Alvarez (2/4), all residents of Los Baños, Laguna, and townmates of Lapitan. The only claiminant of the pirze corresponding to the fourth share was Lapitan. 9. Testimony of Lapitan: a. He bought one share of Sweepstake Ticket No. 073522 on 28 May 1958 from Ajon. b. This was the first ticket he had ever purchased. Because it was his first ticket, he had written down the number on top of page 12 of the printed calendar for the year 1958, and encircled the figure “2” on the same page, to refer to the date of the draw. c. He placed this ticket inside a wooden wardrobe. In the morning of June 2, he put the ticket inside a pocket of his trousers to have it handy for verification. He hung his trousers to a nail on the afternoon of the same day. Late in the afternoon, he found that his trousers were missing. After searching, he found the trousers soaked in a basin of water, as his wife had laundered the trousers. The ticket was inside the
pocket, but already wet and mutilated. He gathered the torn pieces and wrapped them in a sheet of paper. d. He saw the list of winning tickets from a newspaper on June 4. Ajon went to Lapitan on the same day and inquired about the ticket. When Ajon saw the mutilated ticket, he told Lapitan to keep it, and that Ajon would inform PCSO of the matter. Lapitan sought the help of Atty. Baes, who went with both Lapitan and Ajon to claim the prize on August 7. 10. PCSO did not any testimonial evidence; the testimonies of Lapitan and Ajon were not controverted. 11. The Court of Appeals (CA) stated that Lapitan’s testimony was “not only self-serving but also irrational and not in accord with the ordinary course of human behavior”. It ruled in favor of PCSO. ISSUE: Whether or not the CFi and the CA erred in holding that Lapitan did not duly establish that the mutilated ticket bears Serial No. 073522 HELD: 1. YES. While it may seem unusual to record the number of a ticket, it was not impossible for Lapitan, who had bought a ticket for the first time, had done so. In fact, this act would be expected of a poor fisherman like him, who could not afford to pay for a ticket and bought the ticket on credit. 2. “It is easy enough to imagine what others would have or would not have done when made to step into the plaintiff’s shoes. But individuals are not born from the same mould, their temperaments differ and their responses dissimilar. Should we not be justified to compare plaintiff’s conduct, in the light of his new experience, to that of a teenager when seized by the thrill of his first romance? x x x [H]is actions were still natural and normal and, besides, was certainly beyond suspect as having been purposely staged and conceived for the occasion. 3. In this regard, it is so common to hear he proverb that “whom the Gods love, they first made him suffer.” This is as imponderable that has not bene, or cannot be explained, for life and the endless incidents of life are sometimes a bundle of strange contradictions. 4. All that need be said in this respect is that the plaintiff-appellant was in a state of thrill and excitement and, under the spell of his emotions, he could not have acted with a certain amount of queerness not dissimilar to an anxious father awaiting his first born at the hospital. Is this not the kind of queerness that supports the principle of res gestae which, despite its hearsay character, is attributed great weight by tribunals of justice?” 5. The SC did not think that the delay in claiming the ticket was unexplained. It considered that Lapitan’s lawyer, Atty. Baes, needed time to study the various aspects of the case. There is nothing to suggest that a fraudulent scheme existed to enable Lapitan to claim for a prize he did not win. 6. A testimony should not be rejected for being self-serving merely because it had been given by an interested party, especially where it is not contradicted by direct or circumstantial evidence and, upon the whole, appears to be plausible. 7. A meritorious claim should not be sacrified for the mere desire to close all possible avenues of fraud x x x is it not a better rule that each case must be decided upon the facts and circumstances obtaining therein? 8. Humanitarian consideration leans in favor of giving a chance to this man to improve his lot, as envisioned by those who conceived the PCSO. 9. To do an act of charity in pursuance of the objective of the law x x x is a duty. The decision concurred in not only fulfills that duty but also makes justice a living reality.
