[ G.R. No. 4915. January 19, 1909 ] 12 Phil. 540
[ G.R. No. 4915. January 19, 1909 ]
THE UNITED STATES, PLAINTIFF AND APPELLEE, VS. VY CAN SIU, DEFENDANT AND APPELLANT. D E C I S I O N
MAPA, J.:
The accused pleaded guilty to the charge alleged in the complaint, that on the 29th of June, 1908, he had opium in his possession contrary to the provisions of section 31 of Act No. 1761, and was sentenced by the court below to pay a fine of P2,000, or to suffer subsidiary imprisonment, in case of insolvency, at the rate of one day for every P2.50 that he failed to pay, end the costs of the proceeding. From this judgment the accused has appealed. The merits of the case are not discussed in this instance. Granting the culpability of the accused, the defense simply tends to demonstrate that, in view of the circumstances, the penalty imposed by the judgment appealed from is notoriously excessive. These circumstances, according to the defense, are that the accused pleaded guilty, that he appeared in court without a lawyer, that he is a Chinaman who from childhood has been in the habit of smoking opium, and that this is his first offense. These allegations have been sufficiently answered by the brief of the Attorney-General, and it is not necessary to further refute them. Suffice it to remark that the law punishes the unlawful possession of opium after March 1, 1908, by a fine which shall not exceed P10,000, or imprisonment not to exceed five years, or both, in the discretion of the court, from which it will be seen that the penalty imposed can not reasonably be considered unjust and excessive. It appears that counsel for the accused bases his appeal principally upon the belief that, if the fine were not paid, the subsidiary imprisonment might last eight hundred days. He says:
“To consider that the accused must undergo eight hundred days’ imprisonment in case of insolvency is so unreasonable that it is absolutely unnecessary to advance any further argument.”
Indeed, this would seem to be the inference to be derived from the judgment, which in this particular must be modified. According to law, the imprisonment in the present case can not exceed six months. Act No. 1732, which establishes subsidiary imprisonment in case of insolvency in the payment of fines imposed by Acts of the Commission, expressly provides by subsection (c) that-
“In case the sentence of the court merely imposes a fine (as in the present case), the subsidiary imprisonment shall not exceed six months.”
The judgment appealed from is hereby affirmed, provided, however, that the subsidiary imprisonment, which the accused must undergo in case of insolvency, shall not exceed six months, and he is further sentenced to pay the costs of this instance. Arellano, C. J., Torres, Johnson, and Willard, JJ., concur.