Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence


Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence > Year 1912 > March 1912 Decisions > G.R. No. 7203 March 22, 1912 - UNITED STATES v. CHUA PUETE, ET AL

022 Phil 327:




PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT DECISIONS

FIRST DIVISION

[G.R. No. 7203. March 22, 1912. ]

THE UNITED STATES, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. CHUA PUETE and QUE UNG BO, Defendants. QUE UNG BO, Appellant.

Hartford Beaumont, for Appellant.

Acting Attorney-General Harvey, for Appellee.

SYLLABUS


1. OPIUM LAW; ILLEGAL. POSSESSION; ATTEMPTED COMPROMISE NOT COMPLETED, DOES NOT AFFECT THE CRIMINAL PROSECUTION. — The defendant, charged with the illegal possession of opium, attempted to make a compromise with the Collector of Internal Revenue, under section 25 of the Opium Law. He made a part payment to an internal-revenue agent, but the Collector refused to accept the proposition and it was never approved by the Secretary of Finance and Justice. Held: That, the compromise not having been completed in the manner required by law, the attempt in no wise affected the criminal prosecution already begun in the Court of First Instance.


D E C I S I O N


JOHNSON, J. :


These defendants were charged with a violation of the Opium Law, in that they did on the 11th of April, 1911 have in their possession a certain amount of opium and were smoking the same.

During the trial the lower court found that the evidence was insufficient to support the charge against Chua Puete and dismissed the complaint against him and discharged him from the custody of the law, with one-half the costs de oficio.

The lower court found that the evidence was sufficient to support the charge against the defendant Que Ung Bo, and sentenced him to be imprisoned for a period of five months and to pay one-half the costs.

From that sentence the defendant, Que Ung Bo, appealed.

It appears from the record that some time after the defendant had been arrested and before the termination of the criminal proceedings, the defendant, Que Ung Bo, entered into negotiations with an agent of the Internal Revenue Department, for the purpose of effecting a compromise, in accordance with the provisions of section 25 of Act No 1761 of the Philippine Commission. Said section provides:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

"The Collector of Internal Revenue, with the approval of the Secretary of Finance and Justice, may compromise any civil or other case arising from the provisions of this Act instead of commencing or prosecuting suit thereon, and, with the consent of the Secretary of Finance and Justice, he may compromise such case after action has been begun thereon."cralaw virtua1aw library

It also appears from the record that during the course of the negotiations for said compromise, the defendant paid to a representative of the Internal Revenue Department the sum of P700. It also appears from the record that the attempted compromise was never fully completed. The record shows that the Collector of Internal Revenue refused to conclude the attempted compromise. There is nothing in the record which shows that the question had ever been presented to the Secretary of Finance and Justice. The compromise under said quoted section can not be completed without the approval of the said Secretary, and until the compromise is completed, with the approval of the Secretary, no negotiations for a compromise can affect the criminal prosecution instituted. Had the compromise been completed, with the approval of the Secretary of Finance and Justice, it would then have had the effect of terminating the criminal action. Mere negotiations for a compromise can not affect the jurisdiction of the Court of First Instance over the criminal action. The compromise, however, may be perfected "after the action has been begun." The attempted compromise not having been carried to a termination, in accordance with the provisions of said section (25), did in no way affect the criminal prosecution begun in the Court of First Instance.

Upon a careful examination of the record brought to this court, and taking into consideration all the facts and circumstances connected with the commission of the crime, we are of the opinion that the defendant should be punished with a fine only.

The sentence of the lower court is, therefore, hereby modified, and it is hereby ordered that the defendant, Que Ung Bo, be sentenced to pay a fine of P500, in case of insolvency to suffer subsidiary imprisonment, and to pay one-half the costs in the lower court and the costs in this court.

The record does not disclose whether or not the said sum of P700 has been returned to the defendant. If not, the same should be returned after the satisfaction of the sentence herein imposed.

Arellano, C.J., Torres and Carson, JJ., concur.

Moreland and Trent, JJ., concur as to the dispositive part.




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





March-1912 Jurisprudence                 

  • G.R. No. 6783 March 1, 1912 - UNITED STATES v. LUIS REOGILON, ET AL

    022 Phil 127

  • G.R. No. 6183 March 2, 1912 - JUAN SAMBRANO v. BALDOMERO AR ZAGA, ET AL

    022 Phil 131

  • G.R. No. 5902 March 7, 1912 - P. P. ANGEL ORTIZ, ET AL v. Chinaman FELIX MELLIZA

    022 Phil 132

  • G.R. No. 6472 March 7, 1912 - MANUELA ROSARIO, ET AL. v. MANILA RAILROAD COMPANY

    022 Phil 140

  • G.R. No. 6092 March 8, 1912 - TAN CHIONG SIAN v. INCHAUSTI & Co.

    022 Phil 152

  • G.R. No. 6874 March 8, 1912 - UNITED STATES v. CAYETANO RAMAYRAT

    022 Phil 183

  • G.R. No. 6891 March 8, 1912 - MANILA RAILROAD COMPANY v. ATTORNEY-GENERAL, ET AL.

    022 Phil 192

  • G.R. No. 7350 March 8, 1912 - EUGENIA SAVILLA v. ESTEBAN SABELLANO, ET AL.

    022 Phil 197

  • G.R. No. 5735 March 9, 1912 - ESTATE OF LUIS R. YANGCO v. ANTONINO DE ASIS

    022 Phil 201

  • G.R. No. 7189 March 9, 1912 - ADOLFO RAZLAG v. SANCHO BALANTACBO

    022 Phil 205

  • G.R. No. 6163 March 14, 1912 - SON CUI, ET AL v. ATANASIA M. GUEPANGCO, ET AL

    022 Phil 216

  • G.R. No. 6801 March 14, 1912 - JULIANA BAGTAS v. ISIDORO PAGUIO, ET AL.

    022 Phil 227

  • G.R. No. 6962 March 14, 1912 - INES FELICIANO v. ELISA CAMAHORT

    022 Phil 235

  • G.R. No. 7117 March 14, 1912 - AGUSTINA RAFOLS v. EMILIA RAFOLS, ET AL.

    022 Phil 237

  • G.R. No. 6622 March 15, 1912 - PAULA DIRILO v. INOCENCIO ROPERES, ET AL.

    022 Phil 246

  • G.R. No. 7020 March 15, 1912 - UNITED STATES v. DAMIAN SANTA ANA, ET AL

    022 Phil 249

  • G.R. No. 7037 March 15, 1912 - UNITED STATES v. JOSE LAUREL, ET AL.

    022 Phil 252

  • G.R. No. 6748 March 16, 1912 - UNITED STATES v. AMBROSIO FIGUEROA

    022 Phil 269

  • G.R. No. 6574 March 19, 1912 - UNITED STATES v. AGUSTIN CLEMENTE

    022 Phil 277

  • G.R. No. 7027 March 20, 1912 - GEORGE E. WORCESTER v. BUCKNALL STEAMSHIP LINES

    022 Phil 292

  • G.R. No. 5935 March 22, 1912 - STRACHAN & MACMURRAY v. SEGUNDO EMALDI

    022 Phil 295

  • G.R. No. 6585 March 22, 1912 - EULALIO LAGARIZA v. COMMANDING GEN. OF THE DIV. OF THE PHIL.

    022 Phil 297

  • G.R. No. 6809 March 22, 1912 - GREGORIO PEÑALOSA v. DEMETRIO TUASON, ET AL.

    022 Phil 303

  • G.R. No. 7040 March 22, 1912 - UNITED STATES v. MAXIMINO GONZALEZ, ET AL.

    022 Phil 325

  • G.R. No. 7203 March 22, 1912 - UNITED STATES v. CHUA PUETE, ET AL

    022 Phil 327

  • G.R. No. 7294 March 22, 1912 - G. URRUTIA & COMPANY v. PASIG STEAMER & LIGHTER CO.

    022 Phil 330

  • G.R. No. 7144 March 23, 1912 - UNITED STATES v. Co CHICUYCO

    022 Phil 336

  • G.R. No. 6918 March 25, 1912 - UNITED STATES v. YAP KIN CO

    022 Phil 340

  • G.R. No. 7075 March 25, 1912 - RODRIGO ALBANO v. CORNELIO AGTARAP, ET AL.

    022 Phil 345

  • G.R. No. 7124 March 25, 1912 - UNITED STATES v. MARIA ASUNCION

    022 Phil 359

  • G.R. No. 7474 March 25, 1912 - HENRY ATHOLL EDWARDS v. H. B. McCOY

    022 Phil 598

  • G.R. No. 6286 March 26, 1912 - GAVINA FERNANDEZ v. EULOGIO TRIA

    022 Phil 603

  • G.R. No. 6579 March 26, 1912 - CHIENG AH SUI v. INSULAR COLLECTOR OF CUSTOMS

    022 Phil 361

  • G.R. No. 6694 March 26, 1912 - MARIANO NARCIDA, ET AL v. BURTON E. BOWEN

    022 Phil 365

  • G.R. No. 6729 March 26, 1912 - UNITED STATES v. GUILLERMO FIDELDIA

    022 Phil 372

  • G.R. No. 7165 March 26, 1912 - DAMASA LAFORGA, ET AL. v. BRUNO LAFORGA

    022 Phil 374

  • G.R. No. 6651 March 28, 1912 - PAULINO JACINTO v. JULIANA SALVADOR, ET AL.

    022 Phil 376

  • G.R. No. 6733 March 28, 1912 - VICTORIANO S. LAZO v. MARIANO N. LAZO, ET AL.

    022 Phil 380

  • G.R. No. 6920 March 28, 1912 - ALEJANDRA IRLANDA v. CATALINA PITARGUE, ET AL.

    022 Phil 383

  • G.R. No. 7289 March 28, 1912 - ANDRES S. TOBIAS, ET AL. v. GABRIEL C. ENRICO, ET AL.

    022 Phil 394

  • G.R. No. 6164 March 29, 1912 - JUAN MARBELLA v. DOMINGO SAMSON, ET AL.

    022 Phil 400

  • G.R. No. 6664 March 29, 1912 - PEDRO GERALDO v. MATEO ARPON

    022 Phil 407

  • G.R. No. 6690 March 29, 1912 - SILVESTRA V. TENORIO v. MANILA RAILROAD COMPANY

    022 Phil 411

  • G.R. No. 6886 March 29, 1912 - GAUDENCIO TABOTABO v. GREGORIA MOLERO

    022 Phil 418

  • G.R. No. 6958 March 29, 1912 - GABRIELA SANTOS v. DIRECTOR OF LANDS

    022 Phil 424

  • G.R. No. 7089 March 29, 1912 - JOSE T. PATERNO v. PEDRO AGUILA, ET AL

    022 Phil 427

  • G.R. No. 7094 March 29, 1912 - UNITED STATES v. HILARIO DE LA CRUZ

    022 Phil 429

  • G.R. No. 7688 March 29, 1912 - MANILA ELECTRIC RAILROAD & LIGHT CO. v. SIMPLICIO DEL ROSARIO, ET AL

    022 Phil 433

  • G.R. No. 6859 March 30, 1912 - UNITED STATES v. NICOLAS MATINONG, ET AL.

    022 Phil 439

  • G.R. No. 6912 March 30, 1912 - JOSE ARGUELLES v. PEDRO SYYAP, ET AL

    022 Phil 442

  • G.R. No. 7386 March 30, 1912 - ROMAN CATHOLIC ARCHBISHOP OF MANILA v. PEDRO P. ROXAS

    022 Phil 450

  • G.R. No. 7180 March 30, 1912 - RAFAEL ENRIQUEZ, ET AL. v. A. S. WATSON & CO. LTD.

    022 Phil 623