G.R. No. L-11321; March 8, 1916
THE UNITED STATES, plaintiff-appellee, vs. SY BUN KUE, defendant-appellant.

FACTS:
On the night of April 12, 1915, in Iloilo, a secret-service agent and constabulary officers entered a room in the Grand Opera House. They found the accused, Sy Bun Kue, lying on a mat with another Chinese man, Ong Ting. Ong Ting was smoking opium with a pipe. Sy Bun Kue was in possession of opium-smoking implements and was cooking opium over a lamp, preparing to place it in Ong Ting’s pipe. The room smelled of burning opium. The accused did not live in that room, and the building was not shown to be a place where opium was generally or habitually smoked.

The information charged Sy Bun Kue with two specific acts: (1) voluntarily and illegally permitting Ong Ting to use opium, and (2) knowingly visiting a place where Ong Ting smoked said drug. It did not charge him with possession of opium or its implements, personal use, administering opium, or visiting a place where opium was generally smoked.

ISSUE:
Whether the facts as charged in the information constitute a crime under the Opium Law.

RULING:
No. The Supreme Court reversed the judgment of conviction and acquitted the accused.

The Court held that the Opium Law did not declare the specific acts charged in the information to be a crime. Merely being present in a room where another person is smoking opium is not, by itself, unlawful. Furthermore, the information did not allege that the building was a place where opium was generally or habitually smoked, which is an essential element for the crime of “visiting an opium joint.” While the evidence might have supported a charge for administering opium, that offense was not alleged in the information, and a conviction for an uncharged crime is prohibited.

Therefore, the facts proved did not constitute the crime for which the accused was charged and tried. The accused was acquitted, with costs de oficio.