G.R. No. L-7482, December 28, 1912
THE UNITED STATES, plaintiff-appellee, vs. TEN YU, ET AL., defendants-appellants.

FACTS

On October 10, 1911, the defendants were found at No. 408 Calle Salazar, Binondo, Manila, a place where opium was smoked, sold, or distributed. They were charged with violating Section 3 of Ordinance No. 152 of the City of Manila, which prohibited visiting or being present in such a place. The Municipal Court found them guilty and imposed a fine. On appeal to the Court of First Instance (CFI), the defendants demurred to the complaint, arguing that the ordinance was void for lack of municipal authority, unreasonable, imposed cruel/excessive punishment, and that the complaint was insufficient. The CFI overruled the demurrer, citing its prior ruling in U.S. vs. Chua Ong. After trial, the CFI convicted some defendants (including Ten Yu) and acquitted others. The convicted defendants appealed.

ISSUE

1. Whether Ordinance No. 152, specifically Section 3, is a valid exercise of the Municipal Board’s legislative authority.
2. Whether the ordinance is unreasonable for punishing mere presence without considering the visitor’s knowledge or purpose.
3. Whether the ordinance imposes cruel and excessive punishment.
4. Whether the complaint states facts sufficient to constitute a crime.

RULING

The Supreme Court AFFIRMED the conviction and upheld the validity of the ordinance.

1. Validity of the Ordinance: The Court held that the ordinance was a valid exercise of the Municipal Board’s express powers under the Manila Charter ( Act No. 183 ). The Charter explicitly authorized the Board to prohibit and suppress opium joints and to forbid visiting such places. The ordinance was enacted precisely to carry out this granted power and was therefore legal.

2. Reasonableness of the Ordinance: The Court rejected the argument that the ordinance was unreasonable for punishing innocent visitors. It interpreted the ordinance in light of the general legal principle requiring criminal intent (mens rea). A person who visits an opium joint without knowledge of its character or for a lawful purpose would not be “visiting” it within the contemplation of the ordinance. The ordinance inherently requires a degree of culpable intent.

3. Cruel and Excessive Punishment: The Court found this objection answered by its ruling on reasonableness. Since the ordinance was interpreted to apply only to those with knowledge and unlawful intent, it did not impose cruel or unusual punishment on the innocent. The prescribed penalty (fine not exceeding P200 and/or imprisonment not exceeding six months) was within the limits set by the Charter.

4. Sufficiency of the Complaint: The Court held that the complaint, which alleged the defendants willfully and unlawfully visited and were found in a place where opium was smoked and sold, sufficiently stated a cause of action under the ordinance.

The Court emphasized that its role was not to judge the wisdom of the ordinance but only its legality. Since the ordinance was within the Municipal Board’s constitutional and statutory authority, it was valid. The appeal was dismissed, and the lower court’s sentence was affirmed.