Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence


Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence > Year 1917 > September 1917 Decisions > G.R. No. 12423 September 6, 1917 - UNITED STATES v. CHOA CHIOK, ET AL.

036 Phil 831:




PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT DECISIONS

EN BANC

[G.R. No. 12423. September 6, 1917. ]

THE UNITED STATES, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. CHOA CHIOK (alias Chua Chiok), ET AL., Defendants. SEE PIN and CHUA SE TONG, Appellants.

Chas. E. Tenney for Appellants.

Attorney-General Avanceña for Appellee.

SYLLABUS


1. CRIMINAL LAW; EVIDENCE SUFFICIENT TO SHOW EXISTENCE OF OPIUM JOINT. — Following the decision in the case of U. S. v. Sy Toon (36 Phil. Rep., 736), Held: That a certain place is an opium joint can be established by proof of facts and circumstances including evidence of the general reputation of such a place.

2. ID.; MOTION TO DISMISS AT THE CLOSE OF THE EVIDENCE OF THE PROSECUTION. — Held: That "whether or not the evidence presented by the prosecuting attorney, at the time he rests his, is sufficient to convince the court that the defendants are guilty, beyond a reasonable doubt, rests entirely within the sound discretion and judgment of the trial court. The error, if any be committed by the denial of such a motion, can only be corrected on appeal by showing that the evidence was, in fact, insufficient, and then the sentence of the lower court will be reversed for failure of evidence only."


D E C I S I O N


JOHNSON, J. :


The assistant prosecuting attorney of the city of Manila, on the 11th day of July, 1916, presented a complaint against said defendants, charging them with a violation of section 3 of Act No. 2381. The complaint alleged that said defendants did, on or about the 10th day of July, 1916, in the city of Manila, P. I., then and there willfully, unlawfully, feloniously, and knowingly visit and were present at an opium joint in said city where opium, its derivatives and compounds were smoked or otherwise used in and upon the human body and were unlawfully sold and otherwise disposed of. The complaints further alleged that a number of said defendants had theretofore been convicted one or more times of a violation of the Opium Law. Upon said complaint the defendants were arrested, arraigned, and tried. At the conclusion of the trial, some were acquitted and some were convicted. Said appellants were found guilty of the crime charged in the complaint, and each was sentenced to be imprisoned for a period of two months, and to pay a fine of P100, and, in case of insolvency, to suffer subsidiary imprisonment, and to pay their proportional amount of the costs. From that sentence each appealed.

The appellants in their first assignment of error alleged that the lower court committed an error in not dismissing the complaint against the defendants at the close of the evidence of the prosecution. We have held in the case of United States v. Romero (22 Phil. Rep., 565) that; "Whether or not the evidence presented by the prosecuting attorney, at the time he rests his case, is sufficient to convince the court that the defendant is guilty, beyond a reasonable doubt, of the crime charged, rests entirely within the sound discretion and judgment of the lower court. The error, if any be committed by the denial of this motion, can only be corrected on appeal by showing that the evidence was in fact insufficient, and then the sentence of the lower court will be reversed for failure of evidence only."cralaw virtua1aw library

An examination of the proof adduced at the time said motion was made shows beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendants were guilty of the crime charged. We see no reason, therefore, for reversing or modifying the sentence of the lower court by reason of the first assignment of error. (Quison v. Salud, 12 Phil. Rep., 109.)

In their second assignment of error the appellants alleged that the lower court committed an error in admitting proof as to the general reputation of the house, for visiting which the defendants and appellants were prosecuted. In replace to that contention it may be said that this court, in the case of United States v. Sy Toon (p. 736, ante), decided:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

"That a certain place is ’an opium joint’ can be established by proof of facts and circumstances including evidence of the general reputation of the house." (See also the case of States v. Steen [101 N. W., 96], cited in support of that doctrine.)

The proof upon the general reputation of the alleged smoking joint shows that a number of people, at different times, had been arrested in said place for a violation of the Opium Law; that the place was frequented by a large number of Chinamen; that the doors leading into the room where opium was found, together with apparatus for injecting and smoking opium, was strongly barricaded; the a large number of Chinamen were in the room at the tin the policemen arrived on the occasion of the arrest of the present defendants; that immediately upon receiving notice of the presence of the policemen, a great number of the escaped; that the place had been raided a number of time by policemen; that it was understood among the policeman to be an opium joint; that nearly all of the witnesses with testified for the defense were persons who knew the plan and had been convicted from one to five times each for violation of the Opium Law. We think the proof full establishes the fact that said house was an opium joint a that the defendants visited the same knowing its general character. This conclusion answers not only the second assignment of error but as well the fourth and fifth.

The appellants in their third assignment of error alleged that the lower court committed an error in giving credit the declaration of the witnesses for the prosecution. What certain discrepancies in minor details may be pointed in the declaration of the different witnesses for the prosecution upon the main facts they agree. The judge who tried the cause saw the witnesses and heard their declarations and was thereby enabled to discern from their manner of giving their testimony whether or not they were entitled to credit. He gave them full credit, and we find no reason in the record for changing or modifying his conclusions.

For all of the foregoing reasons, and finding as we do that the evidence shows beyond a reasonable doubt that the appellants are guilty of the crime charged, the sentence of the lower court is hereby affirmed, with costs. So ordered.

Arellano, C.J., Carson, Araullo, Street and Malcolm, JJ., concur.




Back to Home | Back to Main




















chanrobles.com





ChanRobles On-Line Bar Review

ChanRobles Internet Bar Review : www.chanroblesbar.com

ChanRobles MCLE On-line

ChanRobles Lawnet Inc. - ChanRobles MCLE On-line : www.chanroblesmcleonline.com






September-1917 Jurisprudence                 

  • G.R. No. 9487 September 4, 1917 - SOFIA P. O’FARREL, ET AL. v. FLORENCIA VICTORIA

    036 Phil 826

  • G.R. No. 12700 September 4, 1917 - UNITED STATES v. PANTALEON OLAIS

    036 Phil 828

  • G.R. No. 12423 September 6, 1917 - UNITED STATES v. CHOA CHIOK, ET AL.

    036 Phil 831

  • G.R. No. 12710 September 6, 1917 - UNITED STATES v. ROSAURO ENRIQUEZ, ET AL.

    036 Phil 843

  • G.R. No. 12502 September 6, 1917 - UNITED STATES v. AGUSTIN DRILON

    036 Phil 834

  • G.R. No. 12564 September 6, 1917 - UNITED STATES v. FAUSTINO M. CORTES

    036 Phil 837

  • G.R. No. 12694 September 6, 1917 - UNITED STATES v. BALDOMERA ESPARCIA

    036 Phil 840

  • G.R. No. 12701 September 6, 1917 - UNITED STATES v. BONIFACIA SALAMAT

    036 Phil 842

  • G.R. No. 12710 September 6, 1917 - UNITED STATES v. ROSAURO ENRIQUEZ, ET AL.

    036 Phil 843

  • G.R. No. 12756 September 6, 1917 - UNITED STATES v. CATALINA SILVANO

    036 Phil 845

  • G.R. No. 12857 September 6, 1917 - UNITED STATES v. ALFREDO MANIQUIS

    036 Phil 846

  • G.R. No. 12412 September 7, 1917 - UNITED STATES v. JUAN MAIDO, ET AL.

    036 Phil 847

  • G.R. No. 12697 September 10, 1917 - UNITED STATES v. BENITO BARNEDO, ET AL.

    036 Phil 851

  • G.R. No. 12779 September 10, 1917 - UNITED STATES v. DIONISIO SANTOS

    036 Phil 853

  • G.R. No. 11094 September 12, 1917 - SABINO LIWAG, ET AL. v. EXEQUIEL YAUCO, ET AL.

    036 Phil 856

  • G.R. No. 12213 September 12, 1917 - UNITED STATES v. ANGEL ANG

    036 Phil 858

  • G.R. No. 12320 September 12, 1917 - UNITED STATES v. VICENTE IGUIDEZ

    036 Phil 860

  • G.R. No. 12091 September 13, 1917 - SIMEON ROQUE v. JAMES J. RAFFERTY

    036 Phil 864

  • G.R. No. 12473 September 18, 1917 - UNITED STATES v. LOO HOE

    036 Phil 867

  • G.R. No. 11080 September 19, 1917 - MARCELINO VILLAFUERTE v. MIGUEL EREGA, ET AL.

    036 Phil 873

  • G.R. No. 11599 September 20, 1917 - MAURA RAMOS v. MARIA CASTELO

    036 Phil 876

  • G.R. No. 10513 September 21, 1917 - URQUIJO, ZULUAGA & ESCUBI v. HIJOS DE I. DE LA RAMA, ET AL.

    036 Phil 878

  • G.R. No. 11353 September 21, 1917 - AURELIO ASOMBRA v. BENITA DORADO, ET AL.

    036 Phil 883

  • G.R. No. 12596 September 21, 1917 - UNITED STATES v. IGNACIO AZTIGARRAGA, ET AL.

    036 Phil 886

  • G.R. No. 11952 September 25, 1917 - UNITED STATES v. NICOLAS MACAMAY

    036 Phil 893

  • G.R. No. 12590 September 25, 1917 - TAN PUY v. INSULAR COLLECTOR OF CUSTOMS

    036 Phil 900

  • G.R. No. 12635 September 25, 1917 - UNITED STATES v. VICENTE REYES

    036 Phil 904

  • G.R. No. 11647 September 26, 1917 - RAFAEL C. DE YNCHAUSTI v. MANILA ELECTRIC RAILROAD AND LIGHT COMPANY

    036 Phil 908

  • G.R. No. 12765 September 26, 1917 - GISBURNE SUPPLY CO. v. VICENTE QUIOGUE

    036 Phil 913

  • G.R. No. 12845 September 26, 1917 - UNITED STATES v. FRANCISCO GAFFUD, ET AL.

    036 Phil 916

  • G.R. No. 12184 September 27, 1917 - UNITED STATES v. CHIU GUIMCO

    036 Phil 917

  • G.R. No. 12607 September 27, 1917 - UNITED STATES v. RUFINO PARRO

    036 Phil 923

  • G.R. No. 12690 September 27, 1917 - UNITED STATES v. LIM BIN

    036 Phil 924

  • G.R. No. 13122 September 27, 1917 - JOSE FELIPE BRACA v. INSULAR COLLECTOR OF CUSTOMS

    036 Phil 929

  • G.R. No. 9576 September 28, 1917 - HILARIO TANATO v. GAUDENCIO SANIEL, ET AL.

    036 Phil 933

  • G.R. No. 12921 September 29, 1917 - UNITED STATES v. MATEA CAÑETE

    036 Phil 935

  • G.R. No. 12632 September 13, 1917 - UNITED STATES v. ISIDRO CARA

    041 Phil 828