The Supreme Court (SC) has acquitted two men previously convicted of illegal gambling, citing the arresting officers’ failure to provide specific and sufficient details about the alleged gambling activity.

In a ruling penned by Associate Justice Amy C. Lazaro-Javier, the SC’s Second Division cleared Robert Plan and Mark Oliver D. Enolva of violating Presidential Decree No. 1602, which penalizes illegal gambling.

The two were earlier arrested after police claimed to have caught them playing cara y cruz, a coin-toss betting game, following a tip from a concerned citizen. They were charged and found guilty by a Metropolitan Trial Court, sentenced to nearly three years in jail—a penalty later reduced to 30 days by the Regional Trial Court. The Court of Appeals upheld the conviction.

However, the Supreme Court overturned the lower courts’ rulings, stating that the prosecution failed to present solid evidence that an actual betting activity had taken place. While officers testified about seeing money on the ground, they were unable to confirm the value or identify who was betting.

The Court emphasized that for a conviction to stand in gambling cases, authorities must provide clear, detailed accounts of the gambling operation, including the identity of bettors, the type of game played, who took the bets, and the exact money used.

"The arresting officers must not only have seen the suspected bettors place their bets," the Court said. "They must testify with certainty on the details of the entire gambling operation including, but not limited to the alleged game being played, the identification of the person administering the bets,as well as the identification of the bettors, and the denomination of money being bet.”

In a concurring opinion, Senior Associate Justice Marvic M.V.F. Leonen agreed with the acquittal and called attention to a broader issue: the unequal enforcement of anti-gambling laws.

He noted that while small street games like cara y cruz are often targeted, gambling in high-end, government-sanctioned casinos continues unchallenged.

“This unequal treatment of offenders on the basis of wealth is a blatant violation of the social justice clause,” he said, arguing that the law ends up penalizing the poor while sparing the wealthy.