These defendants were charged with a  violation of an Act, No. 1523,  to prohibit  the  importation,  sale, giving away, use and  possession of lottery  tickets and  lottery advertising matter,  alleged  to  have been  committed as follows: 

"That on or about June 13, 1911, in the city of Manila, Philippine Islands, the said Emilio Santos Reyes, Dominga Trinidad and Teodoro Fidel  did willfully,  unlawfully and criminally have  in their possession, with the intention of selling, giving away  or using,  79 lottery tickets  of the Royal  Lottery of  Colombo, the  drawing in which should take place on July 25,1911; in violation of law." 

After hearing the evidence, the Honorable A.  S. Cross-fieId, judge,  found each of  the  defendants guilty  of the crime  charged  and  sentenced the  defendant, Emilio S. Reyes, to pay a  fine of P500 and the costs of the  action, with subsidiary imprisonment in case of insolvency, and the defendants, Dominga Trinidad and Teodoro Fidel, each to. be imprisoned for a period of fifteen days and each to pay one-third part of the costs.
   
From that  sentence the defendant, Emilio Santos Reyes, only appealed to this court, and made the following assignment of error: 

"That the  defendant-appellant  had  been  convicted and sentenced for violation of Act No. 1523."

From an examination  of the evidence certain facts are not only proved but admitted.  They are:
     
First. That the defendant, Emilio S. Reyes, was by occupation a printer.
   
Second. That during the months of  March, April, May, and June,  1911, he printed a large  number of lottery tickets, alleged  to be lottery tickets of the  Royal Lottery of Colombo.
   
Third. That a number of said lottery tickets were found in his private residence and others in his place of business.
   
Fourth. That he delivered  some of  said  tickets to the defendant, Dominga  Trinidad, on  or  about the  12th  of June, 1911,  and received therefor  a certain  sum of money.
   
Fifth. That the tickets which the defendant Reyes had delivered to the defendant Dominga Trinidad were later found in the possession of the said Dominga Trinidad and the other codefendant,  Teodoro Fidel.
   
The attorney for the appellant maintains in his  brief that said Act No. 1523 did not provide a punishment for the possession of lottery  tickets of the Philippine Islands or of lottery tickets made "in the Philippine Islands.  He further argues that the tickets were printed by the defendant Reyes for one Miguel Soler and that he had nothing to  do with  said lottery  tickets,  except  to print them under his contract with  Soler.   Soler  was  not called as a witness during the trial of the cause.  The defendant Reyes admitted that  he had printed the tickets;  that he was in possession of the same; that a part of them were found hidden in his house  and that he had  given  to  his codefendant, Dominga Trinidad,  a number of said tickets for a certain sum of money.
   
Section 3 of Act No. 1523 provides:   

"It  shall be unlawful for  any person to sell, give away, use, or have possession of, with  intent to sell, give away, or use, any lottery  ticket or advertisement of any lottery, and possession of any such article shall be deemed presumptive evidence of intent to sell, give away, or use the same in the Philippine Islands, and said possession,  unless satisfactorily explained, shall be deemed  sufficient evidence to warrant conviction."

In view of the fact that  the defendant, Emilio Santos Reyes, gave to his codefendant, Dominga Trinidad, certain of said  lottery tickets, and in view of the fact that he had hidden away in his private  residence certain of said lottery tickets, we are of the opinion that his  possession of the same  has not been satisfactorily explained,  and that his possession  of said  lottery tickets is in violation of said section 3.
     
Therefore the sentence of th£ lower court is hereby  affirmed, with costs.
     
Arellano, C. J., Mapa and Carson, JJ., concur.
     

---

  DISSENTING:

TRENT, J.,

I dissent.
   
The complaint in  this case charges the defendants with the possession of "79 lottery tickets of the Royal Lottery of Colombo, whose drawing  should  take place on the 25th day of July, 1911."
 
This court expressly finds:  (1)  That Emilio  S.  Reyes was a  printer by occupation; (2) that during the months of March, April, May,  and June,  1911, he  printed a large number of lottery tickets including those in question; and (3) that the tickets thus printed purported to be lottery tickets of the Royal  Lottery of Colombo.  From these findings of fact, and taking into  consideration that lotteries are expressly prohibited in this jurisdiction,  the result is that the 79 lottery tickets mentioned in the complaint were spurious.  They did not represent a  lottery, and the sole purpose of the defendants in printing the same in Manila and disposing of them was to secure money by fraudulent representation.  The inquiry now arises, does Act No. 1523 prohibit the  possession or distribution of nongenuine or spurious alleged lottery tickets?
 
The title of Act No. 1523 reads:

"An Act to prohibit the importation, sale, giving away, use, and possession of lottery  tickets,  and lottery advertising matter."

The first section makes it unlawful to import into the Philippine  Islands  from any outside place or port  any lottery ticket or any advertisement of any  lottery.   The second section makes it the duty of the postal authorities to seize such  tickets or advertising matter when imported through  the mails.  The third  section makes it a crime for any  person to have in his possession  with the intent to sell, give away,  or use any lottery ticket or advertising matter.  The remaining sections deal with exactly the same subject.  The Act nowhere treats of  or  even mentions counterfeit lottery  tickets.  Had  some such  phraseology as "purporting or  representing, or understood to be or to represent lottery tickets" been used by the Legislature, there would be no difficulty.  Or had an additional  section been  inserted dealing  with spurious and  fraudulent  lotteries and  lottery tickets, the  judgment  appealed from would have a basis.  But no such language  was used by the tawmaking body.  See Bates Ann. Ohio Stat. (4th ed.), sec. 6929;  Cum. & Gil. Gen, Laws of N, Y.,  Vol. 2. title Lotteries; Wis.  Stat., 1898,  sees. 4523-4527, for illustrations  of laws  which provide for fraudulent or nongenuine lotteries and lottery tickets.  Notwithstanding the fact that the legislature did not prohibit the possession  or  use of spurious  lottery tickets, some such language must be read into the  statute in order to convict the  appellant of a violation of this Act.
 
Suppose that before the passage of Act No. 1523 it was lawful to sell lottery tickets in the Philippine Islands and that  the  appellant  printed  and  sold  the  79 spurious or fraudulent tickets:  it is clear that the crime would have been  estafa,  as he would not have been dealing  in  genuine lottery tickets.

A  conviction  in  a criminal case  cannot  be sustained unless all the  essential  elements  of the  crime are proved beyond a reasonable  doubt.  This  rule  is so well established that to  cite authorities in its  support would be to weaken it by  the implied necessity for argument.  It  is admitted, as I have said, that the  first requisite of the crime of which the  appellant has been convicted was lacking: that is, he did not have in his possession nor did he dispose of lottery tickets.