G.R. No. L-12131, October 10, 1917
THE UNITED STATES, plaintiff-appellee, vs. TAN GOY, GAN SAN LIEN and LIM YU, defendants-appellants.

FACTS:
The defendants-appellants were convicted in the trial court for the offense of unlawful possession of opium under the Opium Law. The evidence on record was found to conclusively sustain their guilt. On appeal, the defendants raised issues regarding the trial court’s jurisdiction and a variance between the place of the offense as alleged in the information and the place proved during the trial.

ISSUE:
1. Whether the trial court had jurisdiction over the offense.
2. Whether a variance between the place alleged in the information and the place proved at trial constitutes reversible error.

RULING:
The Supreme Court affirmed the conviction but modified the judgment to include subsidiary imprisonment in case of insolvency and nonpayment of fines.

1. On jurisdiction: The Court held that the trial court had jurisdiction pursuant to Section 1 of Act No. 400, which amended Act No. 136. The contention of lack of jurisdiction was untenable.

2. On variance of place: The Court ruled that unless time or place is an essential element of the offense, a variance between the allegations in the information and the proof presented does not amount to reversible error, provided: (a) the offense was committed within the court’s territorial jurisdiction and within the prescriptive period; and (b) the accused was not misled or unfairly surprised. In this case, neither time nor place is an essential element of the offense of unlawful possession of opium. The place proved was within the court’s jurisdiction, and there was no indication that the accused were prejudiced by the variance.

The judgment was modified to expressly provide for subsidiary imprisonment in accordance with law and affirmed in all other respects.

This is AI (Gemini and Deepseek) Generated. Please Double Check. Powered by Armztrong.