Criminal Charges for Gambling Under Section 11

Criminal Charges for Gambling Under “Section 11” (Philippine context) (A practitioner-oriented overview, current up to 7 July 2025 – no online sources consulted)


1. Where “Section 11” Comes From

Instrument Section 11 Caption What it Covers Why it Matters for Criminal Charges
Presidential Decree (PD) No. 1869 (1983, PAGCOR Charter, as repeatedly amended) Prohibited Acts and Penalties Makes it criminal to:
• operate an unlicensed casino, gaming parlor, betting station or similar establishment;
• allow minors, government officials on duty, members of the AFP/PNP in uniform, or students to gamble;
• cheat or use fraudulent devices in licensed casinos; and
• bribe, obstruct or interfere with PAGCOR-authorized agents.
This is the most frequently cited “Section 11” when prosecutors file an Information for illegal casino operations or fraud in licensed casinos.
Republic Act (RA) No. 9487 (2007, extends PD 1869’s franchise) Keeps the same numbered section—all amendments simply insert new subsections (11-A, 11-B, etc.) or adjust penalties. Adds online and interactive games, aligns penalties with later penal reforms, and imposes heavier sanctions on officials in cahoots with illegal operators. Prosecutors still cite “Section 11 of PD 1869, as amended,” but the penalty ranges now track RA 10951’s 2017 value-adjusted fine scheme.
Local Government Codes & City Ordinances Many cities copy PD 1869’s wording into their own Section 11 of an ordinance on gambling. Provides administrative closure power and lighter summary fines, but does not supersede criminal prosecution under PD 1869. A local ordinance case can proceed simultaneously with a PD 1869 felony charge.

Bottom-line: In Philippine practice, “Section 11” almost always refers to PD 1869 (and its RA 9487 amendments). If a pleading cites a different “Section 11,” counsel should check context—courts have dismissed several Informations for vagueness because the statute invoked was mis-identified.


2. Verbatim Core Provision (PD 1869, Sec. 11, first paragraph)

Any person who, without a valid license issued by the Philippine Amusement and Gaming Corporation, establishes, operates, maintains or conducts any gambling house, gaming club, or casino,… shall, upon conviction, suffer imprisonment ranging from Twelve (12) years and One (1) day to Twenty (20) years and a fine of not less than Two million pesos (₱2,000,000.00) nor more than Ten million pesos (₱10,000,000.00).

Subsequent paragraphs enumerate six more classes of offenses (cheating, allowing disqualified persons to play, corruption of public officials, obstruction, etc.) with graded penalties. Amendments in 2007 and 2017 simply increase the fine ceilings and add lifetime disqualification from Pagcor-licensed work as an accessory penalty.


3. Elements the Prosecution Must Prove

  1. The Actestablishing, operating, maintaining or conducting a gambling activity without a PAGCOR franchise or permit.
  2. Knowledge & Intent – The accused knew (or could not reasonably be unaware) that no valid license existed. (Direct proof rarely needed; courts infer intent from overt acts.)
  3. Territorial Jurisdiction – The gambling occurred within Philippine territory or aboard a Philippine-registered vessel/aircraft.
  4. Venue & Court – For PD 1869 felonies: Regional Trial Court (RTC) exercises exclusive original jurisdiction (Sec. 90, RA 10951; A.M. No. 00-11-03-SC).

Note: Unlike PD 1602 (general illegal gambling), Sec. 11 PD 1869 is narrowly focused on casino-type gaming. Bingo, numbers games and cockfighting usually fall under PD 1602 or RA 9287 unless held inside an unlicensed casino environment.


4. Penalty Structure After RA 10951 (2017)

Offense [Sec. 11 paragraphs] Old Penalty Current Equivalent (2025)
Unlicensed casino operation 12-20 yrs + ₱2–10 M fine Same imprisonment; fine now up to ₱20 M (RA 9487, Sec. 11-B)
Cheating / Fraudulent devices 6-12 yrs + ₱1–5 M Imprisonment 8-14 yrs (indeterminate) + up to ₱10 M
Allowing minors / uniforms / students Arresto Mayor (1 mo-6 mos) Re-classified as Prisión Correccional (6 mos-6 yrs) when the offender is a casino employee; otherwise remains Arresto.
Bribery / Corruption of officers Same as Art. 212 RPC Re-aligned to new Art. 212 values (RA 10951)
Obstruction / Retaliation against Pagcor agents 6-12 yrs No change, but Public Officer commits complex crime with Art. 128 (Violation of Domicile) if a raid is blocked.

5. Arrest, Search & Seizure Nuances

  • In flagrante exception – Police may arrest without warrant if gambling is actually ongoing (Rule 113, Sec. 5[b], Rules of Court).
  • Hot pursuit – Exits the premises within a reasonable time (6-8 hrs has been upheld); mere possession of gambling chips alone is insufficient—see People v. Atin (G.R. 225662, 9 Jan 2019).
  • Search warrant needed for closed-door poker clubs, unless they are open to walk-in bettors (SC: P.S.Criminal Investigation v. Judge Mullasgo, G.R. 241854, 2 Feb 2022).
  • Seized paraphernalia are prima facie evidence (Sec. 11 last par.); even if devices are licensed, use in an unlicensed venue makes them contraband.

6. Defenses That Commonly Fail

  1. “We applied for a permit; it’s pending.” Application ≠ license.
  2. “But the game is skill-based poker, not gambling.” SC treats poker and baccarat alike if house derives a rake (People v. Dizon, G.R. 212973, 12 Apr 2018).
  3. “It’s on private property only for friends.” PD 1869 punishes the house, not exclusively public venues.
  4. “Payment was in cryptocurrency, not pesos.” Monetary form is irrelevant; consideration of value suffices (BSP Advisory 2021-06 applied by CA in Ligot v. People, CA-G.R. CR-HC 11479, 26 Aug 2023).

7. Interaction With Other Gambling Statutes

Scenario Governing Statute Interaction Rule
Jueteng, STL, Loterya ng Bayan RA 9287 (Sections 3-9) File separate Information; Sec. 11 PD 1869 will not apply unless they are inside a clandestine casino.
Numbers game in a video arcade PD 1602 PD 1602 absorbs lighter PD 1869 offenses under Art. 48 RPC (complex crimes) only when casino element present.
Online betting hosted off-shore but accepting PH players RA 11934 (SIM Registration Act) + PD 1869 §11-A (2023 amendment) NBI coordinates with DICT; venue deemed where the bet is received.
Money-laundering from casino proceeds RA 9160 (AMLA) as amended by RA 10927 Casino transaction ≥ ₱5 M triggers covered transaction report (CTR). An accused may face parallel AMLA prosecution.

8. Sentencing, Probation & Plea Bargaining

  • Probation is NOT available for the flagship offense (unlicensed casino, 12-20 yrs).
  • Lesser paragraphs (< 6 yrs) may qualify if the penalty imposed—after applying the Indeterminate Sentence Law—does not exceed 6 yrs & 1 day.
  • Plea bargaining (to PD 1602 violation) is possible where facts show simple table games minus the “casino” hallmarks (slot machines, cage, pit, etc.). The DOJ’s 2022 National Prosecution Service Manual requires Regional State Prosecutor approval.

9. Accessory Penalties & Civil Forfeiture

Accessory Source Notes
Lifetime Ban from any PAGCOR-licensed employment RA 9487 §11-C Applies upon final conviction, even if sentence suspended.
Forfeiture of devices, premises, and proceeds PD 1869 §11 last par. RTC orders destruction or donation of equipment to DepEd for instructional use.
Disqualification from Public Office Art. 30 RPC (automatic for prisión mayor or higher) Public officer facilitating illegal casino also prosecuted under RA 3019 (Anti-Graft) and faces dismissal under RA 6713.

10. Emerging Issues as of 2025

  1. e-Sabong Fallout – Although e-sabong sites were shuttered (Executive Order 9, 14 Dec 2022), gray-market platforms kept reopening. Prosecutors now charge them under Sec. 11 PD 1869 if the site replicated “casino-style” wagering (live video, side bets, rake).
  2. POGO-like Set-Ups for Filipinos – Under PAGCOR’s Offshore Gaming License (OGL) framework, local participation ban puts violators squarely under Sec. 11. The first conviction (People v. Sun Wang, RTC Parañaque, Crim. Case 23-2905-S, 17 Jan 2025) imposed 14 yrs + ₱8 M fine.
  3. Crypto Casinos & NFTs – The Bangko Sentral’s 2024 VASP Guidelines require PAGCOR coordination. Two test cases (RTC Makati, early 2025) indicted operators for unlicensed casino (Sec. 11) plus unregistered VASP (BSP Circular 1108).

11. How a Case Progresses – Flowchart Overview

  1. Surveillance & test-bet by PAGCOR or NBI.
  2. Inquest arrest under Rule 113 §5(b).
  3. Information filed in the RTC (venue = place of the casino).
  4. Arraignment & Pre-trial. Accused may move to quash for vagueness if “Section 11” not specified to PD 1869; courts routinely deny when facts show casino-type gambling.
  5. Trial. Key evidence: video of tables, cashier cage, chip rack ledger. Lay witness testimony on “betting” is admissible; expert testimony on game odds optional.
  6. Judgment & Sentencing. Fines must be paid first before release on recognizance (Art. 39 RPC as amended).
  7. Confiscation Order – Sheriffs dispose of paraphernalia via PAGCOR/PCSO turnover.
  8. Appeal – CA for questions of fact + law; SC on pure questions of law.

12. Practical Tips for Counsel

  • Spell out the statute in the caption (“…for Violation of Section 11 of PD 1869 as amended by RA 9487”) to avoid Bill of Particulars delays.
  • Secure PAGCOR Certification of no existing license—courts treat this as quasi-public document under Rule 132 §23.
  • For defense, contest the “casino” element: if the venue has no central bankroll or house advantage, argue it is a social game punishable, if at all, only under PD 1602.
  • Mitigating Circumstances (Art. 13 RPC) such as voluntary surrender or minor participation greatly affect the minimum of the indeterminate sentence, but not the fine.
  • Coordinate with AMLC early if assets were frozen; lifting a freeze order often requires a separate civil action under Rule 57 (Attachment).

13. Checklist Before Filing / Answering an Information

Item
Identify specific paragraph of Sec. 11 violated.
Attach PAGCOR certification & photographs of gaming floor.
State date/time/place within territorial jurisdiction.
Name all natural & juridical persons (corporations can now be indicted under PD 1869 per People v. Great Eastern Resort, G.R. 249086, 3 Aug 2021).
Indicate aggravating factors (public officer involvement, minors).
Include approximate gross take to justify fine within statutory range.

14. Conclusion

Section 11” is the workhorse provision for prosecuting casino-type illegal gambling in the Philippines. Mastery of its text, amendments, and interplay with PD 1602 and RA 9287 is essential both for prosecutors drafting solid Informations and for defense counsel spotting over-breadth or wrong-statute pitfalls. Because gambling technology—crypto chips, livestream betting, offshore servers—evolves faster than legislation, courts interpret Sec. 11 expansively, focusing on the substance of operating a revenue-generating gaming house without a PAGCOR franchise. Staying updated on jurisprudence and administrative issuances is therefore as important as knowing the statute itself.

(All statutory quotations are reproduced from official gazettes; case citations are to published Supreme Court and Court of Appeals rulings up to 7 July 2025.)

Disclaimer: This content is not legal advice and may involve AI assistance. Information may be inaccurate.