1913 / Nov

G.R. No. L-8960 - NOVEMBER 1913 - PHILIPPINE JURISPRUDENCE CASE NUMBERCASE TITLE G.R. No. L-8960November 28, 1913 United States vs. Tin Cho Co, et al. G.R. No. L-8472November 28, 1913 Enrique Ayllon vs. Miguel Siojo G.R. No. L-7936November 28, 1913 Cadwallader-Gibson Lumber Company vs. Simplicio del Rosario, et al. G.R. No. L-9146November 26, 1913 United States vs. Pedro Rampas G.R. No. L-9118November 26, 1913 United States vs. Felino Santiago G.R. No. L-8908November 26, 1913 United States vs. Modesto Macuti, et al. G.R. No. L-8106November 26, 1913 Teodoro S. Benedicto vs. Gregorio Yulo G.R. No. L-8856November 21, 1913 United States vs. Julian Saulog, et al. G.R. No. L-6913November 21, 1913 Roman Catholic Bishop of Jaro vs. Gregorio dela Peña G.R. No. L-8848November 21, 1913 United States vs. William C. Hart, et al. G.R. No. L-8924November 18, 1913 United States vs. Domingo Rivera, et al. G.R. No. L-8578November 17, 1913 United States vs. Anselmo Diris, et al. G.R. No. L-8332November 13, 1913 United States vs. Pio Mercado, et al. G.R. No. L-8957November 10, 1913 United States vs. Rufino Baybay G.R. No. L-8156November 10, 1913 Emiliana Racca vs. Catalino Viloria, et al. G.R. No. L-7956November 10, 1913 Luengo & Martinez vs. Jose Moreno G.R. No. L-8622November 7, 1913 United States vs. Enrique Jaca G.R. No. L-8995November 6, 1913 United States vs. Chua Lui G.R. No. L-7726November 6, 1913 Mariano Riosa vs. Claro Verzosa, et al. G.R. No. L-9102November 5, 1913 United States vs. Rufino Sanchez, et al. G.R. No. L-9044November 3, 1913 Severina Falcon, et al. vs. Alberto Barretto, et al. G.R. No. L-8306November 3, 1913 United States vs. Casimiro del Campo, et al. The Lawphil Project - Arellano Law Foundation, Inc. United States vs. Tin Cho Co, et al. Enrique Ayllon vs. Miguel Siojo Cadwallader-Gibson Lumber Company vs. Simplicio del Rosario, et al. United States vs. Pedro Rampas United States vs. Felino Santiago United States vs. Modesto Macuti, et al. Teodoro S. Benedicto vs. Gregorio Yulo United States vs. Julian Saulog, et al. Roman Catholic Bishop of Jaro vs. Gregorio dela Peña United States vs. William C. Hart, et al. United States vs. Domingo Rivera, et al. United States vs. Anselmo Diris, et al. United States vs. Pio Mercado, et al. United States vs. Rufino Baybay Emiliana Racca vs. Catalino Viloria, et al. Luengo & Martinez vs. Jose Moreno United States vs. Enrique Jaca United States vs. Chua Lui Mariano Riosa vs. Claro Verzosa, et al. United States vs. Rufino Sanchez, et al. Severina Falcon, et al. vs. Alberto Barretto, et al. United States vs. Casimiro del Campo, et al. The Lawphil Project - Arellano Law Foundation, Inc.

Republic of the Philippines
SUPREME COURT
Manila

EN BANC

G.R. No. L-8960 November 28, 1913

THE UNITED STATES,plaintiff-appellee,
vs.
TIN CHO CO, ET AL.,defendants.
ONG KIM,appellant.

T. L. McGirr, for appellant.
Office of the Solicitor-General Harvey, for appellee.

CARSON,J.:

The evidence of record in this case conclusively establishes the findings of the trial judge that the appellant in this case, together with three other Chinamen, were surprised together in a locked room by three secret service agents who made their entry into the room through a window; that when the secret service agents entered the room, one of the Chinamen was smoking opium, another was stretched by his side half asleep and apparently under the influence of some drug, while the other two were lying near by sleeping profoundly; that when the sleepers were awakened they staggered like drunken men and behaved as though they had been heavily drugged; that the conduct of these men, when awakened, was such as might be expected from men who had stupefied themselves by smoking opium.

The four Chinamen were arrested, tried and convicted on the charge of smoking opium, but the defendant and appellant in this case is the only one who has brought the proceedings to this court for review. His counsel vigorously contends that except as to the Chinaman who was caught in the act, the evidence of record is not sufficient to sustain a finding that any of the party were guilty of the offense of smoking opium. We are satisfied, however, that in the absence of some satisfactory explanation of the condition in which the appellant was found by the secret service agents, and living in mind all the surrounding circumstances, the trial court correctly found that he was guilty of smoking opium on the night of his arrest. The accused offered no reasonable explanation of the condition in which he was found, and we have no reasonable doubt as to his guilt of the offense of smoking opium, with which he was charged.

The judgment of conviction should be and is hereby affirmed, and the sentence of the trial court, modified by substituting a fine of P300 for so much thereof as imposes a prison sentence on the defendant and appellant, Ong Kim, should be and is hereby affirmed, with the costs of this instance against the appellant.lawph!1.net

Arellano, C.J., Torres, Moreland and Trent, JJ., concur.