G.R. No. L-9784; October 21, 1914
THE UNITED STATES, plaintiff-appellee, vs. ONG SHIU (alias ONG SIO CO), defendant-appellant.

FACTS:
On February 26, 1914, the assistant prosecuting attorney of Manila filed a complaint against Ong Shiu (alias Ong Sio Co) for violating Section 31 of Act No. 1761, as amended by Section 3 of Act No. 1910 (the Opium Law). The complaint alleged that on or about February 24, 1914, in Manila, the accused unlawfully possessed and controlled 8 grams of opium and 4 grams of opium ash. It further alleged that the accused was not a U.S. or Philippine citizen and had been previously convicted twice for violations of the same law.

During trial, police testified that on the morning of February 24, they detected a strong odor of opium emanating from the accused’s room. Upon forcing entry, they saw the accused throw an opium pipe through a hole in the floor; the pipe was recovered still hot. Other opium-smoking paraphernalia were found in the room, and the accused was found in possession of the opium and opium ash. The defense was a general denial.

To prove the alleged prior convictions, the prosecution presented Exhibit Ba certificate from the Manila police department stating that the accused had been convicted in two prior cases (No. 7779 and No. 9253) for Opium Law violations, with sentences of three and four months’ imprisonment, respectively. The defense did not object to the admission of this exhibit during trial. The trial court found the accused guilty and, considering the prior convictions, sentenced him to six months’ imprisonment. The accused appealed, contesting the penalty enhancement.

ISSUE:
Whether Exhibit B (the police certificate) was admissible as evidence to prove the accused’s prior convictions for the purpose of enhancing his penalty.

RULING:
The Supreme Court affirmed the trial court’s judgment.

The Court held that while Exhibit B was not the best evidence to prove prior convictions (the court records themselves would have been preferable), the accused failed to object to its admissibility during trial. Objections to evidence must be raised at the earliest opportunity in the trial court to allow the opposing party to remedy any defect. By not objecting, the accused effectively waived any challenge to the exhibit’s admissibility. The prosecution had the burden to prove the prior convictions, and the certificate established a prima facie case that was not rebutted by the defense. Therefore, the trial court did not err in considering Exhibit B for penalty enhancement.

The Court emphasized that objections to evidence relied upon for reversal or modification of a trial court’s decision must first be raised in the trial court. Since no objection was made, and the accused did not refute the prima facie evidence of prior convictions, the enhanced penalty was proper.

Separate Opinion:
Justice Moreland concurred in the conviction but dissented on the penalty enhancement. He argued that the police certificate was inadmissible hearsay and not the best evidence, and that a person’s punishment should not be increased based on such evidence.