United States v. Chiong Chuico, et al.
Supreme Court
Republic of the Philippines
SUPREME COURT
Manila
EN BANC
G.R. No. 4282 August 18, 1908
THE UNITED STATES,plaintiff-appellee,
vs.
CHIONG CHUICO, YAP-YNTING, CHIONG CHANG, YAP-SUANGCO, LIM UI, UY-JAN-LLING, and LIM-TIONGCO,defendants-appellants.
Domingo Franco, and Jose Pozas, for appellants.
Attorney-General Araneta, for appellee.
WILLARD,J.:
In each of the seventh case above-mentioned, the defendant was convicted for selling opium in violation of Act No. 1461. The evidence of the government sufficiently proved the offense in each case. No evidence was offered by the defendants, except that of two witnesses, one the defendant Lim-Qui. On cross-examination he was asked what was the substance contained in the small can and then in court, which the witnesses for the government had testified was bought from him. His counsel objected to the questions, the court overruled the objection, and directed the witness to answer. Thereupon his counsel; withdraw him from the stand and asked to have all the testimony given by him stricken from the record.
The only other witness was Du-Buntiong, was tried at the same time with the seven defendants above-mentioned, but who did not appeal. His testimony related to the sale by himself, and there was nothing in it which could relate to the other defendants, except some statements about the private character of one of the witnesses for the Government.
The testimony of prosecution was, therefore, uncontradicted. The fact that the witnesses for the government made a purchases of opium for the purpose of securing evidence to convict the defendants of a violation of the law, did not make them accomplices in the crime, and there testimony stands as the testimony of any other witness in a case. (Commonwealth vs. Baker, 155 Mass., 287.)
The judgment of the court below in each case above-mentioned is affirmed, with one-seventh of the costs of this instance against each against one of the seven defendants. So ordered.
Arellano, C.J., Torres, Mapa, Carson and Tracey, JJ.,concur.
Related decisions
Decisions on similar questions that neither cites the other: they rely on the same precedents, are cited together, or apply the same law.
- L-7557 December 7 v. Villamor1912both apply Act 1461
- L-7482 December 28 v. Yu1912both apply Act 1461
- L-7038 January 7 v. Calvo1913both apply Act 1461
- L-5994 December 20 v. Sotto1910both apply Act 1461
- L-5403 January 15 v. Chinaman Tonga Office of the…1910both apply Act 1461
- L-4723 February 8 v. Tan Tayco and1909both apply Act 1461
- States v. For1908both apply Act 1461
- L-4515 November 11 v. Vamenta1908both apply Act 1461
Laws it applies
Links and connections are read from the text by pattern matching, not checked by a person. A guide, not a finding.