Republic of the
PhilippinesSUPREME COURTFIRST
DIVISION
THE UNITED STATES,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
G.
R.
No. L-5994
December
20, 1910
-versus-
SY MACO,
Defendant-Appellant.
D E C I S I
O N
TORRES,
J:
This is a case which was
instituted in the Court of First Instance of Cebu against the Chinaman
Sy Maco, separately from that against his co-defendant, Go Quico, for
violation
of Act No. 1761, and was forwarded to this Court on an appeal entered
by
the defendant.
On August 22, 1909,
J. C. Milliron, an agent of the Bureau of Internal Revenue, after
taking
a memorandum of the numbers of certain bank notes to the value of P35,
to wit, two 10-peso and three 5-peso notes, delivered them, together
with
one (1) peso in silver, to Pacencio Rosales, an employee of the said
Bureau,
in order that the latter might therewith procure opium, and accordingly
Rosales, after he likewise had made a memorandum of the numbers of the
said notes, on the 25th of the month aforementioned, delivered the said
amount to the Chinaman Go Chico, telling him to buy opium wherever he
might
find it. As soon Go Chico had received the money, he went to the store
of the Chinaman Sy Maco, and there having informed the Chinaman Go
Quico,
a clerk in the employ of the owner of the store, of the object of his
visit,
the latter immediately sold him some opium contained in a can which the
said clerk fetched from the back part of the store and delivered to him
in the presence of the said Sy Maco, before whom Go Chico paid the
price
of the opium acquired by delivering the said amount of money. During
this
transaction Sy Maco told the buyer, Go Chico, before the latter left
the
store, that he should be very cautious, as the opium was very dangerous
on account of its being contraband. Another Chinaman, named Du Ho Hay,
who had entered the store after Go Chico to demand a certain sum of
money
which he had delivered the day before to the said Go Quico, as the
latter
had not furnished him the opium he desired to purchase, was also
present
at the time.
While Go Chico was
buying the opium, Pacencio Rosales stationed himself in the street to
observe,
from a certain distance away, what was going on in the store. After the
buyer came out of it, he and Rosales went to the latter's house in
order
there to ascertain whether the contents of the can received in Sy
Maco's
store was really opium, and after Rosales went to the agent Milliron to
deliver the can to him. The latter, through a hole that had been opened
in the can, examined its contents and, as soon as he was convinced that
it really contained opium, at once proceeded to make a search of the
said
Sy Maco's store, which lasted from 11 o'clock in the morning until 1
o'clock
in the afternoon, approximately. At the commencement of the search, the
agent Milliron seized two 10-peso bank notes and one of 5 pesos, found
in one of the drawers of the store, as they bore exactly the numbers of
which he had made a memorandum before he had delivered the notes to
Rosales.
Having, with difficulty, searched all the receptacles and depositories
of the stores, and notwithstanding that the adjoining room in the back
part of it had several doors communicating with different houses, which
made all search and inspection fruitless, yet Milliron found 28 pieces
of bamboo and clay, such as serve to join the stem of the opium pipe
with
the bowl on one end and the mouthpiece on the other. These utensils
were
found on some sacks and cases in the storeroom. It was observed that
two
of the said instruments had been used for smoking opium, as particles
of
opium were found adhering to them.
For the foregoing
reasons,
the Provincial Fiscal filed an Amended Complaint in the Court of First
Instance of Cebu, on August 27, 1909, charging the Chinamen Go Quico
and
Sy Maco with a violation of Section 15 of Act No. 1761, and as this
case
was instituted solely against Sy Maco, under his Petition that he be
tried
separately from his co-accused, Go Quico, the Court, after considering
the evidence adduced therein, rendered judgment on September 29 of the
same year [p. 59 of the trial record], and sentenced the defendant Sy
Maco
to pay a fine of P2,000 and, in case of insolvency, to subsidiary
imprisonment,
and to the payment of one-half of the costs. The can of opium and the
instruments
for smoking the drug, which had been seized, were also ordered to be
confiscated.
From this judgment the defendant, Sy Maco, appealed.
Section 15 of Act No.
1761, known as the Opium Law, provides:
"(a) No person shall
import, cook, or prepare opium, or engage in the business of purchasing
or selling opium or of dealing of trafficking therein, unless he shall
first have secured from the Collector of Internal Revenue a license to
transact such business and shall have paid the license tax prescribed
by
this Act.
"(b) Any person
violating
the provisions of this section shall be punished by a fine of not less
than five hundred pesos nor more than two thousand pesos, or by
imprisonment
for a period of not more than one year, or by both such fine and
imprisonment,
in the discretion of the court."
From the evidence adduced
at the trial of this case, it was proved that the sale of a certain
quantity
of opium, in the store belonging to the Chinaman Sy Maco, by the
latter's
clerk, named Go Quico, to the Chinaman Go Chico, the buyer of the drug,
took place in the presence of the said Sy Maco, for the latter, at the
moment that the buyer was on the point of going out of the store with
the
opium he had brought, charged the said Go Chico to be cautious because
the said drug was contraband and was very dangerous. The record does
not
show it to have been proved that the opium sold belonged exclusively to
Go Quico, while to does show that the clerk got the article from the
inner
part of the store, and that the bank notes delivered by the buyer in
payment
of the price of the opium were found in a drawer in common use in the
said
store. Wherefore, it is unquestionable that the defendant Sy Maco was
directly
interested in the sale and traffic of the said drug, and in whose
store,
at any rate, the opium sold was kept, aside from the fact that a number
of instruments for smoking opium, two of which bore evident signs of
having
been used, were found inside the said store. For these reasons the
liability
of the defendant is undeniable, as he had in his store opium intended
for
sale and knowingly permitted the sale, in his presence, of a certain
quantity
of the said drug by his clerk, Go Quico.
With respect to the
errors assigned by the defense to the judgment appealed from, it is
proper
to state herein, for the purposes of this decision, that the Act of
Congress
of March 3, 1905, section 11, Class III, group 1, No. 80 (b),
prescribes,
among other things, the following:
"Provided, however,
That the Philippine Commission or any subsequent Philippine Legislature
shall have the power to enact legislation to prohibit absolutely the
importation
or sale of opium, or to limit or restrict its importation and sale, or
adopt such other measures as may be required for the suppression of the
evils resulting from the sale and use of the drug: And provided
further,
That after March first, nineteen hundred and eight, it shall be
unlawful
to import into the Philippine Islands opium, in whatever form, except
by
the Government, and for medicinal purposes only, and at no time shall
it
be lawful to sell opium to any native of the Philippine Islands except
for medicinal purposes."
The Philippine Commission,
acting under the authority granted by the said Act of Congress, saw fit
to enact Act No. 1761, which went into effect on October 17, 1907,
repealing
the previous Act No. 1461, and establishing rules for the purpose of
gradually
restricting and regulating the sale and use of opium during the period
of time yet to elapse until the arrival of March 1, 1908, when the
importation
of the said drug into these Islands, as well as its carrying, holding,
possession, or use for smoking, swallowing, injecting, and inhaling,
would
be ultimately prohibited, except for medicinal purposes, as likewise
its
sale, traffic therein, and so forth, as specified in the Act
aforementioned,
enacted on October 10, 1907.
During the period from
the 17th of the same month, when this Act of the Commission went into
effect,
to the day preceding that of March 1, 1908, the legislature intended
gradually
to restrict and regulate the sale and use of opium, until its
importation,
use, possession, sale, and handling should be prohibited from and after
the said 1st of March, in conformity with the aforementioned Act of
Congress.
As the Act of the Commission, before referred to, contains provisions
applicable
to the case at bar, after the absolute prohibition of the use,
possession,
importation, and sale of the said drug, there can be no rational ground
nor well-founded reason for averring that the said Act of the
Commission
was in force only up to March 1, 1908, for the reason that, as
aforestated,
provisions were therein prescribed which were to be strictly complied
with
after the said date of absolute prohibition, with penalties for their
violation,
as may be seen by the text itself of the said Act.
The words of the title
thereof which state, pending the ultimate prohibition of the
importation
of opium into the Philippine Islands, should be construed to mean the
interval
of time up to the date set by the Act of Congress when in accordance
with
said Act its importation into these Islands would be ultimately
prohibited.
With respect to the
allegation of the unconstitutionality of the Act of the Commission, No.
1761, on account of its having been passed for two different purposes,
one restrictive prior to March 1, 1908, and the other prohibitive after
this date, in order to understand that the said Act is not subject to
the
defect thereto attributed, it must be taken into account that Act No.
1761
was passed pursuant to the said Act of Congress, and on this being done
by the Philippine Commission, the provision was strictly complied with
which is contained in a paragraph of Section 5 of the Act of Congress
of
July 1, 1902, to wit:
"That no private or
local bill which may be enacted into law shall embrace more than one
subject,
and that subject shall be expressed in the title of the bill."
It is evident that the
Act of the Commission relates, as expressed by its title or caption, to
a single matter, which is opium, and to no other, and hence the Act,
which
is properly applicable to the matter it concerns for the period from
the
time of its passage, prior and subsequent to March 1, 1908, until it
should
be absolutely repealed by another Act promulgated by the legislative
power,
is in no wise unconstitutional.
For
these reasons which
are based upon the law and because the complaint which initiated this
case
is in conformity with General Orders No. 58, Section 10, We uphold the
ruling denying the demurrer. We also uphold, as proper, the order
denying
the inhibition prayed for by the defendant's counsel, as no support is
found for his petition in any of the cases specified either in Section
8 of the Code of Civil Procedure nor in Act No. 81. Moreover, if either
of the defendants charged with the commission of a single crime is
entitled
to be tried separately from his codefendant, as was done in the present
case on the petition of Sy Maco, in which cause two judgments, one of
the
15th and the other of the 29th of September, 1909, were pronounced by
the
judge who tried the same, in conformity with the provisions established
in Section 33 of the said General Orders No. 58, the aforementioned
first
judgment against Go Quico, one of the two defendants, can not serve the
other defendant, Sy Maco, as a ground for challenging the judge who
rendered
it, as he was not included therein and was the defendant afterwards
concerned
in the second judgment; this because, on the petition of any of the
defendants,
the law authorizes the rendition of a different judgment from that
required
to be rendered against the others, as occurred in the present case,
and,
in proceeding in this wise, the judge did not violate any law whatever
nor did he execute any act contrary or prejudicial to the defendants'
rights,
especially in view of the fact that, as in the case of Sy Maco, the
latter
expressly petitioned for a separate trial. It is not permissible in
judicial
proceedings to turn against one's own acts and to avail oneself of a
privilege
granted by the law for the purpose of impugning judicial acts in accord
with the provisions of the law with his own petition.
With regard to the
other errors ascribed to the judgment appealed from, it is sufficient,
in our opinion, for their disposal to state that the findings of fact
as
well as those of law, contained in that judgment, are accepted,
inasmuch
as we find them to be in accordance with the law and the evidence and
other
merits of the case, although, in consideration of the small amount of
opium
sold and of the fact that this is the first time, as shown by the
record,
that the defendant has violated the Opium Law, he may be deemed
entitled
to a lesser penalty.
For the foregoing
reasons,
therefore, it is our opinion that the judgment appealed from must be
affirmed,
with the costs of this instance; provided, however, that the defendant,
Sy Maco, shall be sentenced to the payment only of a fine of P500 and,
in case of insolvency, to the corresponding subsidiary imprisonment.
The
bank notes with which the opium was bought shall be returned to their
owner,
if this has not already been done. This decision shall not bar a
continuance
of the proceedings in this cause with respect to the other defendant,
Go
Quico, a report of the status of which shall be made by the clerk of
the
Court. So ordered.
Arellano, C.J.,
Johnson, Moreland, and Trent, JJ., concur. |