G.R. No. L-11737; August 25, 1916
THE UNITED STATES, plaintiff-appellee, vs. MARCELO JOSE, ET AL., defendants-appellants.

FACTS:
The defendants, Marcelo Jose and Tan Bo, were charged with illegally importing 15 kilos of opium into the Philippine Islands. The information alleged that on or about May 16, 1915, in the naval reservation of Olongapo, they imported the opium without authority. The charge was based on information that the steamship Abarenda, coming from Shanghai, carried opium consigned to Marcelo Jose. Customs secret service agents conducted surveillance and witnessed a banca from the Abarenda deliver a bundle to Tan Bo at Jose’s lumber store. Upon inspection, the bundle contained cans of opium. Marcelo Jose was later arrested after attempting to bribe one of the agents. During trial, the prosecution presented Lieutenant C. C. Riner, an intelligence officer, who testified that the Abarenda arrived from Shanghai based on information given to him by his commander and the ship’s captain. The defense objected to this testimony as hearsay.

ISSUE:
Whether the prosecution successfully proved the essential element that the opium was imported from a foreign country, thereby establishing the crime of illegal importation under Act No. 2381.

RULING:
No. The Supreme Court reversed the conviction and acquitted the accused. The Court held that the prosecution failed to prove an essential element of the crime of illegal importation: that the opium was brought into the Philippines from a foreign country. The only evidence presented to establish the Abarenda’s port of origin was the hearsay testimony of Lieutenant Riner, who had no personal knowledge but relied on statements from his commander and the ship’s captain. Such hearsay evidence is incompetent to prove a material fact in a criminal case. Without proof that the vessel came from a foreign port, the crime of illegal importation was not established.

The Court also considered whether the accused could be convicted of the lesser offense of illegal possession of opium under the same information. It ruled that illegal possession is not necessarily included in the crime of illegal importation, as importation is complete once the opium enters Philippine waters, regardless of possession. Therefore, a conviction for illegal possession could not be substituted under Section 29 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The judgment of conviction was reversed, and the accused were acquitted.