Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence


Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence > Year 1909 > January 1909 Decisions > G.R. No. 4915 January 19, 1909 - UNITED STATES v. VY CAN SIU

012 Phil 540:




PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT DECISIONS

EN BANC

[G.R. No. 4915. January 19, 1909. ]

THE UNITED STATES, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. VY CAN SIU, Defendant-Appellant.

C. W. O’Brien, for Appellant.

Attorney-General Villamor, for Appellee.

SYLLABUS


1. OPUIM LAW; PENALTY; SUBSIDIARY IMPRISONMENT. — Counsel for appellant claimed that, inasmuch as the defendant is a Chinaman long addicted to the use of opium, as he pleaded guilty, and this being his first offense, the sentence of the court below, imposing a fine of P2,000 with subsidiary imprisonment at the rate of P2.50 per day, is excessive: Held, That the fine imposed is within the discretionary power of the court as conferred by law, but that subsidiary imprisonment under Act No. 1732 can not, in any event, exceed six months.


D E C I S I O N


MAPA, J. :


The accused pleaded guilty to the charge alleged in the complaint, that on the 29th of June, 1908, he had opium in his possession contrary to the provisions of section 31 of Act No. 1761, and was sentenced by the court below to pay a fine of P2,000, or to suffer subsidiary imprisonment, in case of insolvency, at the rate of one day for every P2.50 that he failed to pay, and the costs of the proceeding. From this judgment the accused has appealed.

The merits of the case are not discussed in this instance. Granting the culpability of the accused, the defense simply tends to demonstrate that, in view of the circumstances, the penalty imposed by the judgment appealed from is notoriously excessive. These circumstances, according to the defense, are that the accused pleaded guilty, that he appeared in court without a lawyer, that he is a Chinaman who from childhood had been in the habit of smoking opium, and that this is his first offense. These allegations have been sufficiently answered by the brief of the Attorney-General, and it is not necessary to further refute them. Suffice it to remark that the law punishes the unlawful possession of opium after March 1, 1908, by a fine which shall not exceed P10,000, or imprisonment not to exceed five years, or both, in the discretion of the court, from which it will be seen that the penalty impose can not reasonably be considered unjust and excessive.

It appears that counsel for the accused bases his appeal principally upon the belief that, if the fine were not paid, the subsidiary imprisonment might last eight hundred days. He says:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

"To consider that the accused must undergo eight hundred days’ imprisonment in case of insolvency is so unreasonable that it is absolutely unnecessary to advance any further argument."cralaw virtua1aw library

Indeed this would seem to be the inference to be derived from the judgment, which in this particular must be modified. According to law, the imprisonment in the present case can not exceed six months. Act No. 1732, which establishes subsidiary imprisonment in case of insolvency in the payment of fines imposed by Acts of the Commission, expressly provides by subsection (c) that —

"In case the sentence of the court merely imposes a fine (as in the present case), the subsidiary imprisonment shall not exceed six months."cralaw virtua1aw library

The judgment appealed from is hereby affirmed, provided, however, that the subsidiary imprisonment, which the accused must undergo in case of insolvency, shall not exceed six months, and he is further sentenced to pay the costs of this instance.

Arellano, C.J., Torres, Johnson and Willard, JJ., concur.

Separate Opinions


TRACEY, J., dissenting:chanrob1es virtual 1aw library

Section 31 of the Opium Law reads as follows:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

"Any unauthorized person owning, carrying, holding, having, controlling, having possession of, or knowingly having on his premises, any opium, cocaine, alpha or beta eucaine, or any derivative or preparation of such drugs or substances, on and after March first, nineteen hundred and eight, shall be punished be a fine not exceeding ten thousand pesos, or by imprisonment for not exceeding five years, or by both such fine and imprisonment, in the discretion of the court: Provided, however, That in the case of the commission of a second offense under the provisions of this section, any person so convicted, if other than a citizen of the United States or a citizen of the Philippine Islands, may, by order of the court, be deported."cralaw virtua1aw library

The extremely severe penalties allowed by this section of the law are intended to apply to aggravated cases such as those of holding the drug in large quantities or concealing it. If any such circumstance exists, the Government should prove it, and in the absence of such proof the court should not assume the fact.

In assigning no minimum penalty under this section, the Legislature has clearly left to the discretion of the court the imposition of the punishment suited to the character of the offense, even down to the least degree. The P2,000 fine in this case is out of proportion to the scale of punishments applied by this court to other offenses under this same Act and is beyond the bounds of a reasonable discretion. It is not a sufficient answer to say that the accused may minimize it by taking six months’ imprisonment; it can not be taken for granted that he will choose to be imprisoned. The fine should be reduced.

Carson, J., concurs.




Back to Home | Back to Main


chanrobles.com



ChanRobles Professional Review, Inc.

ChanRobles Professional Review, Inc. : www.chanroblesprofessionalreview.com
ChanRobles On-Line Bar Review

ChanRobles Internet Bar Review : www.chanroblesbar.com
ChanRobles CPA Review Online

ChanRobles CPALE Review Online : www.chanroblescpareviewonline.com
ChanRobles Special Lecture Series

ChanRobles Special Lecture Series - Memory Man : www.chanroblesbar.com/memoryman





January-1909 Jurisprudence                 

  • G.R. No. 4000 January 5, 1909 - ANDRES ELUMBARING v. HERMOGENES ELUMBARING

    012 Phil 384

  • G.R. No. 4001 January 5, 1909 - SILVESTRA LUBRICO v. LEONA ARBADO

    012 Phil 391

  • G.R. No. 4393 January 8, 1909 - LA COMPAÑIA GENERAL DE TABACOS v. CITY OF MANILA

    012 Phil 397

  • G.R. No. 4648 January 8, 1909 - CLAUS SPRECKELS, ET AL. v. D. H. WARD, ET AL.

    012 Phil 414

  • G.R. No. 4762 January 8, 1909 - ALBERTO LAGAHIT v. SIMEON NENGASCA, ET AL.

    012 Phil 423

  • G.R. No. 4841 January 8, 1909 - JAMES F. MACLEOD v. PHILIPPINE PUBLISHING COMPANY

    012 Phil 427

  • G.R. No. 5120 January 8, 1909 - TIMOTEO GONZALEZ v. GEORGE N. WOLFE

    012 Phil 436

  • G.R. No. 4680 January 9, 1909 - ROBERTO MORENO v. AGO CHI

    012 Phil 439

  • G.R. No. 4350 January 11, 1909 - MONICA CASON v. F. W. RICKARDS, ET AL.

    012 Phil 444

  • G.R. No. 4627 January 11, 1909 - UNITED STATES v. EL CHINO QUE-QUENCO

    012 Phil 449

  • G.R. No. 4634 January 11, 1909 - UNITED STATES v. UY-KUE-BENG

    012 Phil 451

  • G.R. No. 4089 January 12, 1909 - ARTURO PELAYO v. MARCELO LAURON, ET AL.

    012 Phil 453

  • G.R. No. 4604 January 12, 1909 - GUTIERREZ HERMANOS v. ANTONIO DE LA RIVA

    012 Phil 458

  • G.R. No. 4849 January 12, 1909 - TIMOTEO CASTRO, ET AL. v. ADOLPH WISLIZENUS, ET AL.

    012 Phil 468

  • G.R. No. 4596 January 13, 1909 - UNITED STATES v. ESTEBAN FORTALEZA

    012 Phil 472

  • G.R. No. 4810 January 13, 1909 - VICTORIA GARCIA v. B. MONTAGUE

    012 Phil 480

  • G.R. No. 4495 January 14, 1909 - TY SUE, ET AL. v. JOHN S. HORD

    012 Phil 485

  • G.R. No. 5050 January 14, 1909 - UNITED STATES v. GO-SIACO

    012 Phil 490

  • G.R. No. 4461 January 16, 1909 - MACARIO SAMSON v. VICENTE SALVILLA, ET AL.

    012 Phil 497

  • G.R. No. 3187 January 19, 1909 - MICHAEL SANDELIZ v. PAZ REYES

    012 Phil 506

  • G.R. No. 3966 January 19, 1909 - JUAN LEANO I, ET AL. v. AGAPITO LEANO

    012 Phil 508

  • G.R. No. 3988 January 19, 1909 - GUILLERMO YACAPIN v. JULIAN JIBERO

    012 Phil 510

  • G.R. No. 4563 January 19, 1909 - UNITED STATES v. GARINO SORIANO, ET AL.

    012 Phil 512

  • G.R. No. 4676 January 19, 1909 - UNITED STATES v. PEDRO TOGONON

    012 Phil 516

  • G.R. No. 4720 January 19, 1909 - CARLOS GSELL v. VALERIANO VELOSO YAP-JUE

    012 Phil 519

  • G.R. No. 4750 January 19, 1909 - UNITED STATES v. RICARDO F. GUTIERREZ

    012 Phil 529

  • G.R. No. 4766 January 19, 1909 - ANG QUIAN CIEG, ET AL. v. JUAN TE CHICO, ET AL.

    012 Phil 533

  • G.R. No. 4915 January 19, 1909 - UNITED STATES v. VY CAN SIU

    012 Phil 540

  • G.R. No. 5049 January 19, 1909 - ALFREDO CHANCO v. ANACLETA MADRILEJOS, ET AL.

    012 Phil 543

  • G.R. No. 4765 January 20, 1909 - ANG SENG QUEN, ET AL. v. JUAN TE CHICO, ET AL.

    012 Phil 547

  • G.R. No. 4291 January 21, 1909 - GUTIERREZ HERMANOS v. CUSTODIO DAUDEN

    012 Phil 551

  • G.R. No. 5101 January 21, 1909 - TEODORO M. BEECH v. A. S. CROSSFIELD, ET AL.

    012 Phil 555

  • G.R. No. 4721 January 23, 1904

    RICARDO v. BASILIO MAJINAY

    012 Phil 559

  • G.R. No. 4813 January 23, 1909 - UNITED STATES v. POTENCIANO SIAMSICO

    012 Phil 571

  • G.R. No. 3714 January 26, 1909 - ISABELO M. MONTANO v. INSULAR GOVERNMENT, ET AL.

    012 Phil 572

  • G.R. No. 3783 January 26, 1909 - DAMASO SANTIAGO, ET AL. v. INSULAR GOVERNMENT

    012 Phil 593

  • G.R. No. 4194 January 26, 1909 - KO BENGCO v. SHERIFF OF THE PROVINCE OF ILOILO, ET AL.

    012 Phil 595

  • G.R. No. 4374 January 26, 1909 - RUFINA ROCES v. FRANCISCO JALANDONI, ET AL.

    012 Phil 599

  • G.R. No. 4710 January 26, 1909 - LEON AGCAOILI v. BENITO ACASIO

    012 Phil 602

  • G.R. No. 4715 January 26, 1909 - UNITED STATES v. EL CHINO CHIA-TUA

    012 Phil 605

  • G.R. No. 4474 January 27, 1909 - BERNABE ALCERA v. SATURNINO NERY

    012 Phil 608

  • G.R. No. 4706 January 27, 1909 - RAMON PAPA v. FRANCISCO MARTINEZ

    012 Phil 613

  • G.R. No. 4816 January 27, 1909 - FRANCISCO Q. GONZALEZ v. CARLOS PALANCA TAN-GUINLAY

    012 Phil 617

  • G.R. No. 4725 January 28, 1909 - UNITED STATES v. JACINTO DE LOS SANTOS, ET AL.

    012 Phil 622

  • G.R. No. 4832 January 28, 1909 - MUÑOZ & CO. v. JOHN S. HORD

    012 Phil 624

  • G.R. No. 3016 January 29, 1909 - ROMAN CATHOLIC APOSTOLIC CHURCH v. MUNICIPALITIES OF CALOOCAN, ET AL.

    012 Phil 639