G.R. No. L-4723

THE UNITED STATES, plaintiff-appellee, vs. TAN TAYCO AND CO SENCHO, defendants-appellants.

February 8, 1909

—

FACTS:

On the night of November 30, 1907, in Ormoc, Leyte, municipal authorities found opium-smoking utensils (a lamp and a pipe) in a store co-owned by Tan Tayco and Andres T. Avila. The utensils were located near or under Avila’s bed in a room he shared with Co Sencho, an employee, which connected to Tan Tayco‘s room. Tan Tayco and Co Sencho were charged with violating Section 7 of Act No. 1761 (Opium Law), which prohibits the unauthorized possession of opium paraphernalia.

The defendants admitted not being authorized to possess such items but denied they were in their possession or control, claiming they belonged to Andres Avila. Avila testified that he owned the utensils, had a license to possess them under the previous Act No. 1461 , and left them in his room before Act No. 1761 was passed, not anticipating the new law. He further stated that Tan Tayco and Co Sencho had no interest or control over them.

The prosecution presented three witnesses who claimed Tan Tayco owned the pipe and had been seen smoking opium with it. The defense countered that these witnesses were unreliable gamblers who testified falsely out of revenge after the defendants refused them opium.

ISSUE:

1. Is Section 7 of Act No. 1761 (Opium Law) unconstitutional for violating the due process clause of the Philippine Bill?
2. Was the evidence presented by the prosecution sufficient to prove the guilt of Tan Tayco and Co Sencho beyond a reasonable doubt?

RULING:

1. On Constitutionality: The Court did not deem it necessary to discuss the constitutional question at length but affirmed the legislature’s power to regulate or prohibit opium use. It held that the habitual use of opium to excess is a degrading and dangerous vice, and the legislature has the power to control its use for public welfare, making the prohibition of paraphernalia a valid exercise of police power.
2. On Sufficiency of Evidence: The Court found the evidence offered by the prosecution insufficient to sustain a judgment of conviction.
Regarding Avila’s testimony: The Court found his explanation credible. His initial hesitation and subsequent confirmation of ownership of the pipe, even under rigid cross-examination, were not deemed conclusive proof of perjury. It was plausible he was mistaken at first glance or the item’s appearance had changed. His claim of possessing a license under the previous law and leaving before the new law took effect was considered reasonable.
Regarding the prosecution witnesses: The Court rejected their testimony, finding them unworthy of credit. Their character (professional gamblers with no visible means of support), the admitted motive of revenge (due to being denied opium), and the potential for informers to receive a share of the fine, collectively cast grave doubt on their veracity.

Therefore, the judgment and sentence of the trial court were reversed, and Tan Tayco and Co Sencho were acquitted of the offense.