Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence

Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence > Year 1914 > February 1914 Decisions > G.R. No. 9056 February 12, 1914 - UNITED STATES v. GUY ANGLO

026 Phil 615:



[G.R. No. 9056. February 12, 1914. ]

THE UNITED STATES, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. GUY ANGLO, Defendant-Appellant.

C. W. O’Brien, for Appellant.

Solicitor-General Harvey, for Appellee.


1. OPIUM LAW; SECOND CONVICTION; DEPORTATION RATHER THAN JAIL SENTENCE. — Where the facts justify the imposition of a sentence of deportation for a violation of the Opium Law, such a sentence should be imposed, caeteris paribus, rather than a jail sentence.



An appeal by the defendant, Guy Angco, from a judgment of the Court of First Instance of the Province of Isabela, condemning him to be confined in Bilibid Prison for the period of one year and one day, to be deported from the Philippine Islands, and to pay the costs of the cause.

The defendant pleaded not guilty to the charge of violating the Opium Law, and on March 7, 1913, two witnesses were examined on behalf of the prosecution, who testified to the facts as alleged in the information. A certified copy of a previous judgment of the same court convicting the in evidence. The case was then continued until the following morning, at which time the defendant asked to be permitted to change his plea of "not guilty" and to plead "guilty," and to be deported to China. He told the court that was the third time he had been convicted of the same offense.

Appellant’s counsel states: "The accused has been accorded a fair trial, but we believe that the court has erred in sentencing him to serve a term of imprisonment. Prisoners are an expense to the Government of the Philippine Islands and to imprison a man for a term and at the end thereof, to deport him, is a good deal like punishing the Government."cralaw virtua1aw library

The Attorney-General says: "It appears that there is no good reason for putting this Government to the expense of maintaining and doctoring this Chinaman for an entire year before deporting him. It is, therefore, respectfully recommended that the sentence be modified, and that the defendant be ordered deported forthwith."cralaw virtua1aw library

We concur with the Attorney-General and modify the judgment according. A judgment directing the deportation of the appellant will be entered. Without costs in this instance.

Arellano, C.J., and Araullo, J., concur.

Separate Opinions

MORELAND, J., concurring:chanrob1es virtual 1aw library

I concur because the accused himself asked to be deported.

Back to Home | Back to Main

ChanRobles Professional Review, Inc.

ChanRobles Professional Review, Inc. :
ChanRobles On-Line Bar Review

ChanRobles Internet Bar Review :
ChanRobles CPA Review Online

ChanRobles CPALE Review Online :
ChanRobles Special Lecture Series

ChanRobles Special Lecture Series - Memory Man :