August 1917 - Philippine Supreme Court Decisions/Resolutions
Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence
Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence > Year 1917 > August 1917 Decisions >
G.R. No. 12321 August 23, 1917 - UNITED STATES v. SEE CHO
036 Phil 779:
036 Phil 779:
EN BANC
[G.R. No. 12321. August 23, 1917. ]
THE UNITED STATES, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. SEE CHO, Defendant-Appellant.
J. N. Wolfson for Appellant.
Attorney-General Avanceña for Appellee.
SYLLABUS
1. CRIMINAL LAW; APPEAL; EVIDENCE. — Judgment of conviction affirmed notwithstanding the omission of documents from the records brought here on appeal, which were submitted at the trial and are on file with the records of the court below; it appearing that there is other evidence of record conclusively establishing the allegations of the information in support of which those documents were introduced; and it appearing further, that those documents were submitted at the trial with the unchallenged statement that they disclosed the truth of those allegations.
D E C I S I O N
CARSON, J. :
The undisputed evidence of record conclusively establishes the guilt of the defendant and appellant of the offense of which he was convicted in the court below.
In corroboration of the testimony of the witnesses for the prosecution, to the effect that the house mentioned in the information was a notorious "opium-den" or "opium-joint," the Government submitted in evidence the records of various cases on file in the court below, with the unchallenged statement that these records disclosed that, on more than one occasion, it had been judicially declared that this house was in whole, or in part, an "opium-joint," or "opium-den." These records were not brought here together with the record of this case on appeal, and if the oral evidence of record did not conclusively establish the character of the house, we would be compelled to acquit this appellant, or to suspend these proceedings in order that the record might be perfected in this regard. We are satisfied, however, in view of the oral evidence, that the failure to bring these records to this court on appeal has in nowise prejudiced the substantial rights of the appellant. It was, of course, the duty of the clerk of the trial court to forward these records together with the record of the case under consideration, and it was also the duty of the Government to take the proper measures to perfect the record as soon as the omission was discovered, and our action in this case should not be construed as putting the stamp of approval upon such omissions in the future. But counsel for the appellant having deemed it expedient to refrain from exercising his undoubted privilege to have the case suspended until the omissions in the record could be corrected; and there not being any evidence in the record tending in the slightest degree to put in doubt the truth of the testimony of the witnesses as to the fact that the house in question was an "opium-den;" we think it will make for the prompt administration of justice and for the best interests of the appellant himself to confirm the judgment entered in the court below, without the delay incident to the issuance of and compliance with orders looking to the bringing of the records in question to this court.
We conclude that the judgment entered in the court below, convicting and sentencing this appellant, should be affirmed, with the costs of this instance de officio. So ordered.
Arellano, C.J., Johnson, Araullo, Street and Malcolm, JJ., concur.
In corroboration of the testimony of the witnesses for the prosecution, to the effect that the house mentioned in the information was a notorious "opium-den" or "opium-joint," the Government submitted in evidence the records of various cases on file in the court below, with the unchallenged statement that these records disclosed that, on more than one occasion, it had been judicially declared that this house was in whole, or in part, an "opium-joint," or "opium-den." These records were not brought here together with the record of this case on appeal, and if the oral evidence of record did not conclusively establish the character of the house, we would be compelled to acquit this appellant, or to suspend these proceedings in order that the record might be perfected in this regard. We are satisfied, however, in view of the oral evidence, that the failure to bring these records to this court on appeal has in nowise prejudiced the substantial rights of the appellant. It was, of course, the duty of the clerk of the trial court to forward these records together with the record of the case under consideration, and it was also the duty of the Government to take the proper measures to perfect the record as soon as the omission was discovered, and our action in this case should not be construed as putting the stamp of approval upon such omissions in the future. But counsel for the appellant having deemed it expedient to refrain from exercising his undoubted privilege to have the case suspended until the omissions in the record could be corrected; and there not being any evidence in the record tending in the slightest degree to put in doubt the truth of the testimony of the witnesses as to the fact that the house in question was an "opium-den;" we think it will make for the prompt administration of justice and for the best interests of the appellant himself to confirm the judgment entered in the court below, without the delay incident to the issuance of and compliance with orders looking to the bringing of the records in question to this court.
We conclude that the judgment entered in the court below, convicting and sentencing this appellant, should be affirmed, with the costs of this instance de officio. So ordered.
Arellano, C.J., Johnson, Araullo, Street and Malcolm, JJ., concur.
