G.R. No. L-3882 - JANUARY 1908 - PHILIPPINE JURISPRUDENCE CASE NUMBERCASE TITLE G.R. No. L-3882January 31, 1908 United States vs. Martin Rubio Co-Pinco G.R. No. L-3832January 31, 1908 United States vs. Isaias Gonzalez, et al. G.R. No. L-4273January 30, 1908 Vicenta G. Fabie, et al. vs. City Of Manila G.R. No. L-4010January 30, 1908 United States vs. , et al. G.R. No. L-3481January 30, 1908 Gabino Pisarillo, et al. vs. Vicente Ladia, et al. G.R. No. L-4030January 29, 1908 Maria Aniversario vs. Florencio Ternate G.R. No. L-3673January 29, 1908 Mariano Guerrero vs. Antonio Miguel G.R. No. L-3533January 29, 1908 Juan Tuason vs. Ceferino Domingo Lim G.R. No. L-3947January 28, 1908 United States vs. Simeon Agravante, et al. G.R. No. L-3874January 28, 1908 United States vs. Emilio Leyva G.R. No. L-3857January 28, 1908 United States vs. Manuel da Silva G.R. No. L-4153January 25, 1908 United States vs. Pablo Guevara G.R. No. L-4029January 25, 1908 In re: Domingo Butalid G.R. No. L-3782January 25, 1908 Antonio Zaragoza vs. Estate of the Deceased Ramon M. de Viademonte G.R. No. L-3538January 25, 1908 La Sociedad "Germina" vs. Manuel Nubla G.R. No. L-3502January 25, 1908 Rafael Enriquez, et al. vs. Florencia Victoria, et al. G.R. No. L-3008January 25, 1908 Roman Catholic Apostolic Church, et al. vs. Certain Municipalities in the Province of Iloilo, et al. G.R. No. L-3705January 24, 1908 United States vs. Felix Boquilon G.R. No. L-3013January 24, 1908 Roman Catholic Apostolic Church, et al. vs. Certain Municipalities in the Province of Ilocos Sur, et al. G.R. No. L-3888January 23, 1908 Henry W. Eliot vs. Catalina Montemayor, et al. G.R. No. L-3015January 23, 1908 Roman Catholic Apostolic Church, et al. vs. Municapilites in the Province of Oriental Negros, et al. G.R. No. L-4019January 22, 1908 United States vs. Jose Dimayuga G.R. No. L-3355January 22, 1908 Bonifacio Mendoza,et al. vs. Francisco Nabong, et al. G.R. No. L-3155January 22, 1908 John Bordman vs. Insular Government, et al. G.R. No. L-2554January 22, 1908 Antonio Mina vs. Victorino Lustina G.R. No. L-3934January 21, 1908 United States vs. Ambrosio Estabillo, et al. G.R. No. L-4149January 20, 1908 Enrique F. Somes vs. Rafael S. Molina, et al. G.R. No. L-3940January 20, 1908 Miller, Sloss & Scott vs. Henry M. Jones G.R. No. L-4188January 18, 1908 Emile H. Johnson vs. Sancho Balantacbo G.R. No. L-3993January 18, 1908 United States vs. Teofilo Algurra G.R. No. L-3833January 18, 1908 Juan Azarraga vs. Jose Rodriguez G.R. No. L-4036January 17, 1908 H.J. Andrews vs. Juan Morente Rosario, et al. G.R. No. L-3802January 17, 1908 Tomas Sunico vs. Francisco Chuidian G.R. No. L-3800January 17, 1908 Marcela Perizuelo, et al. vs. Teodoor S. Benedicto, et al. G.R. No. L-3595January 17, 1908 Domingo Ledesma vs. Gregorio Marcos G.R. No. L-4034January 16, 1908 United States vs. Ciriaco Empeinado, et al. G.R. No. L-3784January 16, 1908 Antonio Alvarez vs. Insular Government G.R. No. L-2997January 16, 1908 Jose Iturralde vs. Antonio Garduño G.R. No. L-2625January 16, 1908 Jose Iturralde vs. Ramon Magcauas G.R. No. L-4184January 15, 1908 Lucila Boydon vs. Mateo Antonio Felix G.R. No. L-3859January 15, 1908 United States, et al. vs. Felix Arlante G.R. No. L-3764January 15, 1908 Luisa Peña vs. W.H. Mitchell, et al. G.R. No. L-3731January 15, 1908 J.T. Cassells vs. Roberto R. Reid, et al. G.R. No. L-3981January 14, 1908 United States, et al. vs. Gaspar Alvir G.R. No. L-3970January 14, 1908 United States vs. Bonifacio Bunsalan G.R. No. L-3592January 14, 1908 Dalmacio Francisco vs. Geronimo Tabada G.R. No. L-4387January 13, 1908 Vicente Priolo vs. Pedro Priolo G.R. No. L-4202January 13, 1908 United States vs. Sia Tao, et al. G.R. No. L-4183January 13, 1908 United States vs. Andres Soriano G.R. No. L-4046January 13, 1908 Pedro Casimiro vs. Jose Fernandez, et al. G.R. No. L-3834January 13, 1908 Isodora Gacrama, et al. vs. Maria Lozada, et al. G.R. No. L-3866January 11, 1908 E.B. Merchant vs. International Banking Corporation G.R. No. L-4044January 10, 1908 W.H. Sammons vs. Macario Favila G.R. No. L-3956January 10, 1908 United States vs. Emilio Carrero G.R. No. L-3772January 10, 1908 Laurente Baldovino vs. Pedro Amenos, et al. G.R. No. L-3687January 10, 1908 United States vs. John Hazley, Jr. G.R. No. L-4070January 9, 1908 Jose R. Infante vs. Catalina Montemayor G.R. No. L-4023January 9, 1908 United States vs. Benito Manansala, et al. G.R. No. L-3282January 9, 1908 Ricardo Aguado vs. City of Manila G.R. No. L-3997January 8, 1908 United States vs. , et al. G.R. No. L-3987January 8, 1908 United States vs. Lorenzo Tupas G.R. No. L-3631January 8, 1908 Warner, Barnes & Co., Limited vs. Roman Jaucian, et al. G.R. No. L-3603January 8, 1908 Diego Ruguian, et al. vs. Roman Ruguian G.R. No. L-2080January 7, 1908 United States vs. Felix Melliza, et al. G.R. No. L-3777January 6, 1908 United States vs. Nicolasa Pascual G.R. No. L-3196January 6, 1908 Carmen Zamora P. Gonzaga vs. Pedro Martinez, et al. G.R. No. L-3128January 4, 1908 Un Pak Leung vs. Juan Nigorra, et al. G.R. No. L-3890January 2, 1908 United States vs. , et al. G.R. No. L-3889January 2, 1908 Josefa Varela vs. Antonio Matute G.R. No. L-3771January 2, 1908 Pedro P. Roxas vs. Alejandro Aguirre, et al. G.R. No. L-3736January 2, 1908 Alexandra Dragon vs. Carmen dela Cavada de Enriquez, et al. G.R. No. L-3133January 2, 1908 Roman Catholic Apostolic Church, et al. vs. Municipalities of Cuyapo, et al. The Lawphil Project - Arellano Law Foundation, Inc. United States vs. Martin Rubio Co-Pinco United States vs. Isaias Gonzalez, et al. Vicenta G. Fabie, et al. vs. City Of Manila United States vs. , et al. Gabino Pisarillo, et al. vs. Vicente Ladia, et al. Maria Aniversario vs. Florencio Ternate Mariano Guerrero vs. Antonio Miguel Juan Tuason vs. Ceferino Domingo Lim United States vs. Simeon Agravante, et al. United States vs. Emilio Leyva United States vs. Manuel da Silva United States vs. Pablo Guevara In re: Domingo Butalid Antonio Zaragoza vs. Estate of the Deceased Ramon M. de Viademonte La Sociedad "Germina" vs. Manuel Nubla Rafael Enriquez, et al. vs. Florencia Victoria, et al. Roman Catholic Apostolic Church, et al. vs. Certain Municipalities in the Province of Iloilo, et al. United States vs. Felix Boquilon Roman Catholic Apostolic Church, et al. vs. Certain Municipalities in the Province of Ilocos Sur, et al. Henry W. Eliot vs. Catalina Montemayor, et al. Roman Catholic Apostolic Church, et al. vs. Municapilites in the Province of Oriental Negros, et al. United States vs. Jose Dimayuga Bonifacio Mendoza,et al. vs. Francisco Nabong, et al. John Bordman vs. Insular Government, et al. Antonio Mina vs. Victorino Lustina United States vs. Ambrosio Estabillo, et al. Enrique F. Somes vs. Rafael S. Molina, et al. Miller, Sloss & Scott vs. Henry M. Jones Emile H. Johnson vs. Sancho Balantacbo United States vs. Teofilo Algurra Juan Azarraga vs. Jose Rodriguez H.J. Andrews vs. Juan Morente Rosario, et al. Tomas Sunico vs. Francisco Chuidian Marcela Perizuelo, et al. vs. Teodoor S. Benedicto, et al. Domingo Ledesma vs. Gregorio Marcos United States vs. Ciriaco Empeinado, et al. Antonio Alvarez vs. Insular Government Jose Iturralde vs. Antonio Garduño Jose Iturralde vs. Ramon Magcauas Lucila Boydon vs. Mateo Antonio Felix United States, et al. vs. Felix Arlante Luisa Peña vs. W.H. Mitchell, et al. J.T. Cassells vs. Roberto R. Reid, et al. United States, et al. vs. Gaspar Alvir United States vs. Bonifacio Bunsalan Dalmacio Francisco vs. Geronimo Tabada Vicente Priolo vs. Pedro Priolo United States vs. Sia Tao, et al. United States vs. Andres Soriano Pedro Casimiro vs. Jose Fernandez, et al. Isodora Gacrama, et al. vs. Maria Lozada, et al. E.B. Merchant vs. International Banking Corporation W.H. Sammons vs. Macario Favila United States vs. Emilio Carrero Laurente Baldovino vs. Pedro Amenos, et al. United States vs. John Hazley, Jr. Jose R. Infante vs. Catalina Montemayor United States vs. Benito Manansala, et al. Ricardo Aguado vs. City of Manila United States vs. , et al. United States vs. Lorenzo Tupas Warner, Barnes & Co., Limited vs. Roman Jaucian, et al. Diego Ruguian, et al. vs. Roman Ruguian United States vs. Felix Melliza, et al. United States vs. Nicolasa Pascual Carmen Zamora P. Gonzaga vs. Pedro Martinez, et al. Un Pak Leung vs. Juan Nigorra, et al. United States vs. , et al. Josefa Varela vs. Antonio Matute Pedro P. Roxas vs. Alejandro Aguirre, et al. Alexandra Dragon vs. Carmen dela Cavada de Enriquez, et al. Roman Catholic Apostolic Church, et al. vs. Municipalities of Cuyapo, et al. The Lawphil Project - Arellano Law Foundation, Inc.
Republic of the Philippines
SUPREME COURT
Manila
EN BANC
G.R. No. L-3882 January 31, 1908
THE UNITED STATES,plaintiff-appellee,
vs.
MARTIN RUBIO CO-PINCO,defendant-appellant.
Pablo Borbon for appellant.
Attorney-General Araneta for appellee.
JOHNSON,J.:
This defendant was charged with the violation of the provisions of section 5 of Act No. 1461 of the Philippine Commission, known as the Opium Law, in the following complaint:
That the said accused, on several occasions, and on certain days in April, May, June and July, 1906, on the _______ day of ______ 190 ___, at Paoay, Province of Ilocos Norte, did willfully, unlawfully, and feloniously give to certain persons his pipe and opium in order that they might smoke at his house without a proper license therefor, which persons are not such as under section 5(a) of the law are permitted to smoke. This is an act which constitutes a violation as defined and punished under the said section 5 (a) of Act No. 1461, committed within the jurisdiction of this Court of First Instance, and is contrary to law.
Upon this complaint the defendant was duly arrested brought before the court and arraigned and pleaded "not guilty". After a consideration of the evidence adduced during the trial of the cause, the court below found the defendant guilty of the offense charged in said complaint and sentenced him to be confined in the provincial jail of the Province of Ilocos Norte for a period of two months and to pay a fine of P200, and in case of insolvency to suffer subsidiary imprisonment at the rate of P2.50 per day, which subsidiary imprisonment shall not exceed one-third of the time imposed in the principal penalty. From this sentence of the lower court the defendant appealed.
Said section 5 of Act No. 1461 provides in part as follows:
(a) It shall be unlawful to sell, transfer, give, or deliver opium in any of its forms, to any person, unless such person is a duly licensed physician, ... or is a duly licensed wholesale dealer or retail dealer in opium, or is duly registered as a confirmed user of opium, as prescribed in section two hereof, who presents his certificate as such at the time of the sale, transfer, gift, or delivery to him of opium in any of its forms: . . .
(b) Any person violating the provisions of this section shall be punished by a fine not exceeding one thousand pesos, or by imprisonment for a period not exceeding one year, or by both such fine and imprisonment, in the discretion of the court.
An examination of the evidence brought to this court discloses that on various and distinct days during the months of May, June, and July, 1906, the defendant herein gave to various persons opium to be smoked by them, and that these various persons did then and there, in the hose of the defendant, smoke the opium thus given to them by the defendant. The attorney for the defendant in this court admits the following facts:
1. That the Chinaman, Martin Rubio-Co-Pinco, is registered under Act No. 1461, as an inveterate opium smoker.
2. That frequently this Chinaman was visited by certain friends who undoubtedly were fond of smoking opium, the president of the town among them.
3. During these visits, the accused, who was at the time smoking opium, out of courtesy, offered his pipe to his visitors; the offer as an act of courtesy, for it has been proved that he did not collect money and that his visitors paid him nothing for it.
These admissions by the attorney for the defendant support the conclusion of the court below.
The complaint presented in this cause alleged that the persons to whom the defendant gave opium were not of the class to whom opium might be given under the provisions of said section 5. No evidence was introduced to prove this negative allegation. As was said in the case of United Statesvs. Isaias Gonzalez1in accordance with section 297 of the Code of Procedure in Civil Actions, the prosecuting attorney was not required to prove this negative allegation. If the person to whom the defendant gave opium belonged to the class to whom opium might be given, it was the duty of the defendant to prove that fact. The purpose of the law was to prevent the selling, transferring, giving, or delivering of opium, in any of its forms, to any person or persons, except those expressly mentioned in the law. The selling, transferring, giving, or delivering of opium was limited to a special class mentioned in said law. Exceptions in a law other than those which constitute a part of the offense need not be alleged or proved. The exception is a matter for the defendant to prove. (U.S.vs. Demarchi, 5 Blatchford, 84; Rexvs. Pemberton, 1 Wm. Blackstone, 230; Rexvs. Baxter, 1 Wm. Blackstone, 580; Bishop's New Criminal Procedure, vol. 1 sec. 513).
After a full examination of the record brought to this court, we are of the opinion, and so hold, that the sentence of the lower court should be affirmed, with costs, except as to that part of said sentence which imposes subsidiary imprisonment, which is hereby revoked. So ordered.
Arellano, C.J., Torres, Mapa, Carson, Willard, and Tracey, JJ.,concur.
Footnotes
1Page 66,supra.