The Supreme Court has ordered the Philippine Charity Sweepstakes Office (PCSO) to pay a Batangas resident of P12.3 million he won as jackpot prize in the Lotto 6/42 draw in 2014 despite the presentation of a partially blackened ticket.
In a decision written by Associate Justice Jhosep Y. Lopez, the SC affirmed the 2020 ruling handed down by the Court of Appeals (CA) which upheld the 2019 order issued by the Balayan regional trial court (RTC) in favor of Antonio F. Mendoza.
The SC said: “… even in the absence of a readable ticket, he (Mendoza) was able to prove that he selected a set of numbers that corresponds to the winning combination number for the 6/42 Lotto draw on Oct. 2, 2014.”
“Thus, he is entitled to receive the jackpot prize for the said Lotto draw,” the SC said as it ruled the payment of six percent interest per annum from the date of the finality of its decision until fully paid.
On Oct, 2, 2014, Mendoza placed three bets for the Lotto 6/42 draw via “lucky pick” at a lotto outlet in Batangas. The next morning, he learned that one of his “lucky pick” combinations won.
But his granddaughter crumpled his winning ticket. In an attempt to straighten the ticket, his daughter ironed the crumpled ticket underneath a cloth which resulted in the blackening of the ticket.
What remained visible were the first two digits of the three-bet combinations, the outlet from which the ticket was bought, the draw date, the date of purchase, and, partially, the time the ticket was purchased.
On Oct. 5, 2014, Mendoza presented his partially blackened ticket to the PCSO office in Mandaluyong City to claim his prize. He was told to submit a handwritten account of what happened to the ticket. He complied and returned two days after with his affidavit.
However, PCSO informed Mendoza that the prize could not be awarded to him because the ticket was damaged and could not be validated.
Mendoza’s travails reached the House of Representatives which recommended the award of the prize based on the circumstances and evidence presented to prove ownership of the winning ticket.
He then demanded the award of his prize but the PCSO denied. He then filed a case before the RTC which ruled in his favor. On top of the prize, the trial court awarded damages and payment of attorney’s fees.
PCSO appealed to the CA which affirmed the trial court’s ruling except for the award of damages and attorney’s fees. The CA upheld the trial court’s ruling that Mendoza was the only one who selected the winning six-number combination the Oct. 2, 2014 Lotto 6/42 draw.
Undeterred, PCSO elevated the case to the SC.
In a summary of the decision, the SC’s public information office (PIO) said:
“The Court held that the circumstances surrounding the fact that Mendoza bet in the eventual winning numbers of the lotto were clearly established.
“Noting that both the RTC and the CA characterized the pieces of evidence presented by Mendoza as secondary evidence, the Court explained that secondary evidence may be resorted to when the original document is unavailable.
“Under the Best Evidence Rule as stated in the Rules of Court, when the subject of the inquiry is the contents of the document, no evidence is admissible other than the original document itself, except for certain instances, such as when such original document is not available.
“The Court further expounded that the Best Evidence Rule does not apply and testimonial evidence is admissible where the issue pertains to the execution or the existence of the document or the circumstances surrounding its execution.
“In this case, while it is the numbers in the ticket that would prove whether Mendoza indeed won the jackpot lotto prize, it is actually the existence of the ticket that is being assailed by the sweepstakes office.
“Whether the ticket bearing the numbers of the lotto indeed existed is an issue that does not require the application of the Best Evidence Rule.
“The Court said that the testimonial evidence of Mendoza and those of his relatives, as substantiated by the PCSO records, and surrounding the fact that Mendoza entered a winning lotto bet and that the chosen numbers correspond to the winning lotto number were rightly admissible and given weight.”