G.R. No. L-5994
THE UNITED STATES, plaintiff-appellee, vs. SY MACO, defendant-appellant.
December 20, 1910

FACTS: On August 22, 1909, J.C. Milliron, an internal revenue agent, gave marked bank notes (two P10 and three P5 notes, totaling P35) and P1 in silver to Pacencio Rosales, an employee, to purchase opium. On August 25, Rosales gave the money to Go Chico, instructing him to buy opium. Go Chico went to the store of the Chinaman Sy Maco, where Sy Maco’s clerk, Go Quico, sold him opium contained in a can fetched from the back of the store. The transaction occurred in Sy Maco’s presence, and Go Chico paid with the marked money. As Go Chico was leaving, Sy Maco warned him to be cautious because the opium was contraband and dangerous.

Rosales observed the transaction from the street. After Go Chico confirmed the contents of the can were opium, Rosales delivered it to Milliron. Milliron confirmed it was opium and immediately searched Sy Maco’s store. He found two P10 and one P5 marked bank notes in a drawer. In the storeroom, he also found 28 pieces of bamboo and clay used for opium pipes, two of which showed signs of use with opium particles.

The provincial fiscal filed an amended complaint against Go Quico and Sy Maco for violating Section 15 of Act No. 1761 (The Opium Law). Sy Maco requested a separate trial. The Court of First Instance of Cebu found Sy Maco guilty and sentenced him to a fine of P2,000, with subsidiary imprisonment in case of insolvency, and confiscation of the opium and instruments. Sy Maco appealed.

Section 15 of Act No. 1761 prohibits importing, cooking, preparing, purchasing, selling, dealing, or trafficking in opium without a license, with penalties ranging from P500 to P2,000 fine, or up to one year imprisonment, or both.

ISSUE: 1. Did the Court of First Instance err in finding Sy Maco liable for engaging in or knowingly permitting the sale and trafficking of opium in his store?
2. Was Act No. 1761 unconstitutional for having two purposes (restrictive prior to March 1, 1908, and prohibitive thereafter)?
3. Did the trial judge err in denying the demurrer and the petition for inhibition based on having previously rendered judgment against the co-accused, Go Quico?

RULING: 1. No, the Court of First Instance did not err in finding Sy Maco liable. The Supreme Court affirmed that the sale of opium by Sy Maco’s clerk, Go Quico, occurred in Sy Maco’s presence. Sy Maco’s warning to Go Chico to be cautious because the opium was “contraband and very dangerous” indicated his knowledge and participation in the illegal activity. The fact that the opium was fetched from the inner part of his store, and the marked bank notes were found in a common drawer, further supported his direct interest in the sale and traffic of the drug. Additionally, the discovery of used opium smoking instruments in his store provided further evidence of opium-related activity under his control. The Court concluded that Sy Maco had opium in his store intended for sale and knowingly permitted the sale by his clerk.

2. No, Act No. 1761 was not unconstitutional. The Supreme Court held that Act No. 1761 , passed pursuant to the Act of Congress of March 3, 1905, did not violate the provision that “no private or local bill which may be enacted into law shall embrace more than one subject, and that subject shall be expressed in the title of the bill.” The Act’s title clearly related to a single subject: opium. Its provisions, which gradually restricted and then absolutely prohibited opium, were all consistent with this single subject and the legislative intent to regulate and ultimately suppress its use and traffic.

3. No, the trial judge did not err in denying the demurrer or the petition for inhibition. The Court found the complaint to be in conformity with General Orders No. 58, Section 10. Regarding the inhibition, the Court held that a defendant’s right to a separate trial, as granted to Sy Maco, means that a judgment rendered against a co-defendant (Go Quico) does not provide a ground for challenging the judge in the separate trial of the other defendant (Sy Maco). Sy Maco had expressly petitioned for a separate trial and could not later impugn judicial acts consistent with his own petition and the law.

The Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of conviction but, considering the small amount of opium sold and that this was the defendant’s first violation of the Opium Law, reduced the penalty.

Sy Maco was sentenced to pay a fine of P500 and, in case of insolvency, to the corresponding subsidiary imprisonment. The bank notes were ordered returned to their owner, and proceedings against Go Quico were to continue.