G.R. No. L-10299; August 3, 1915
THE UNITED STATES, plaintiff-appellee, vs. ONG YEC SO, defendant-appellant.

FACTS:
The defendant-appellant, Ong Yec So, was convicted in the trial court for the unlawful use and possession of opium under Act No. 2381. The prosecution presented evidence of a prior conviction of the accused under the old Opium Law. The trial judge, in imposing the penalty, considered this evidence of a former conviction. However, the judge did not apply the specific penalty for recidivism as defined under the new statute. Instead, he used it as a basis to impose a penalty more severe than the minimum prescribed by law, but within the statutory range.

ISSUE:
Whether the trial court erred in considering the accused’s prior conviction under the old Opium Law to impose a more severe penalty for a violation of the new Opium Law (Act No. 2381).

RULING:
The Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of conviction and the penalty imposed by the trial court.

The Court found no reason to doubt the guilt of the accused, as there was no basis to conclude that the prosecution witnesses testified falsely. Regarding the penalty, the Court held that the trial judge correctly exercised his discretion. The Court clarified the law on recidivism under Section 2 of Act No. 2381, which prescribes a specific penalty (including potential deportation for non-citizens) for a “second or subsequent offense under the provisions of this section.” This means the enhanced penalty for recidivism applies only when the prior conviction was also under the same Act (Act No. 2381). A prior conviction under the repealed old Opium Law does not qualify for the statutory recidivism penalty.

However, the Court ruled that within the broad discretion granted to courts in imposing penalties under the statutewhich sets a range of a fine and imprisonmentit is proper and just to consider a defendant’s prior conviction under the old law. Such a prior record can be a valid factor for imposing a penalty toward the more severe end of the statutory range, as opposed to the minimum penalty that might be given to a first-time offender. Since the trial judge did not apply the specific recidivism penalty but merely used the prior record as an aggravating circumstance within the authorized range, his action was legally sound.

Arellano, C.J., Torres, Johnson, Trent, and Araullo, JJ., concurred.