G.R. No. L-5889, July 12, 1911
THE UNITED STATES, plaintiff-appellee, vs. LOOK CHAW (alias LUK CHIU), defendant-appellant.

FACTS

Look Chaw was charged with selling opium without a license, in violation of Section 15 of Act No. 1761 (the Opium Law). The evidence showed that on August 18, 1909, in Cebu, he sold one can of opium to Vicente Base. This sale was part of a larger transaction involving 30 cans of opium, which were the subject of a separate prosecution for illegal possession ( G.R. No. 5887 ). Look Chaw had initially been charged in a single complaint for both possession and sale, but upon his counsel’s demurrer arguing duplicity, the court ordered the filing of two separate complaints. He was first tried and convicted for illegal possession. In the subsequent trial for illegal sale, he pleaded double jeopardy, but the trial court rejected the plea and convicted him, sentencing him to one year imprisonment and a P2,000 fine. Look Chaw appealed, arguing that an isolated sale does not constitute “engaging in the business of selling” under Section 15, and that his confession was improperly considered.

ISSUE

1. Whether an isolated sale of opium constitutes a violation of Section 15 of Act No. 1761 (“engaging in the business of selling”) or of Section 5 (“selling” opium).
2. Whether the conviction violated the principle of double jeopardy, given the prior conviction for illegal possession of the same opium.

RULING

1. On the Nature of the Offense: The Supreme Court held that the act charged (an isolated sale) falls under Section 5 of Act No. 1761 , which penalizes any act of selling opium without requiring proof of engaging in the business of selling. Section 15, in contrast, applies to habitual or professional selling as a business. Since the complaint alleged selling without authorization, it effectively charged a violation of Section 5. The Court thus modified the penalty to that prescribed by Section 5: imprisonment not exceeding one year and a fine not exceeding P1,000. The sentence was reduced to six months imprisonment and a P1,000 fine.

2. On Double Jeopardy: The Court rejected the double jeopardy claim. It distinguished the crimes of illegal possession and illegal sale as separate offenses. Possession of opium (punished under Section 31) is not a necessary means to commit the crime of sale (punished under Section 5) in this context. The opium possessed could be intended for various uses (e.g., smoking, injecting, or selling), and the fact that it was eventually sold does not make possession an indispensable part of the sale. The separation of the charges was proper, and convicting the accused for both possession and sale of the same opium did not place him in double jeopardy.

The judgment of conviction was AFFIRMED with the modification of the penalty as stated. Costs were imposed on the appellant.