August 1908 - Philippine Supreme Court Decisions/Resolutions
Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence
Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence > Year 1908 > August 1908 Decisions >
G.R. No. 4282 August 18, 1908 - UNITED STATES v. CHIONG CHUICO
011 Phil 106:
011 Phil 106:
EN BANC
[G.R. No. 4282. August 18, 1908. ]
THE UNITED STATES, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. CHIONG CHUICO, YAP-YNTING, CHIONG-CANG, YAP-SUANGCO, LIM-QUI, UY JAN LLING, and LIM-TIONGCO, Defendants-Appellants.
Domingo Franco, and Jose Pozas for Appellants.
Attorney-General Araneta for Appellee.
SYLLABUS
1. VIOLATIONS OF THE OPIUM LAW; GOVERNMENT WITNESSES. — The fact that witnesses for the Government made purchases of opium for the purpose of securing evidence to convict the defendants of a violation of the law, did not make them accomplices, and their testimony stands the same as that of any other witness in the case.
D E C I S I O N
WILLARD, J. :
In each of the seven cases above-mentioned, the defendant was convicted for selling opium in violation of Act No. 1461. The evidence of the Government sufficiently proved the offense in each case. No evidence was offered the defendants, except that of two witnesses, one the defendant Lim-Qui. On cross-examination he was asked what was the substance contained in the small can then court, which the witnesses for the Government had testified was bought from him. his counsel objected to the question, the court overruled the objection, and directed the witness to answer. Thereupon his counsel withdrew him from the stand and asked to have all the testimony given by him stricken from the record.
The only other witness was Du-Buntiong, who was tried at the same time with the seven defendants above-mentioned, but who did not appeal. His testimony related to the sale by himself, and there was nothing in it which could relate to the other defendants, except some statements about the private character of one of the witnesses for the Government.
The testimony of the prosecution was, therefore, uncontradicted. The fact that the witnesses for the Government made the purchases of opium for the purpose of securing evidence to convict the defendants of a violation of the law, did not make them accomplices in the crime, and their testimony stands as the testimony of any other witness in a case. (Commonwealth v. Baker, 155 Mass., 287.)
The judgment of the court below in each case above mentioned is affirmed, with one-seventh of the costs of this instance against each one of the seven defendants. So ordered.
Arellano, C.J., Torres, Mapa, Carson and Tracey, JJ., concur.
The only other witness was Du-Buntiong, who was tried at the same time with the seven defendants above-mentioned, but who did not appeal. His testimony related to the sale by himself, and there was nothing in it which could relate to the other defendants, except some statements about the private character of one of the witnesses for the Government.
The testimony of the prosecution was, therefore, uncontradicted. The fact that the witnesses for the Government made the purchases of opium for the purpose of securing evidence to convict the defendants of a violation of the law, did not make them accomplices in the crime, and their testimony stands as the testimony of any other witness in a case. (Commonwealth v. Baker, 155 Mass., 287.)
The judgment of the court below in each case above mentioned is affirmed, with one-seventh of the costs of this instance against each one of the seven defendants. So ordered.
Arellano, C.J., Torres, Mapa, Carson and Tracey, JJ., concur.
