G.R. No. 5809

THE UNITED STATES, PLAINTIFF AND APPELLEE, VS. NICANOR CASTAÑEDA AND CRISPULO EDRALIN, DEFENDANTS AND APPELLANTS. D E C I S I O N

[ G.R. No. 5809. December 22, 1910 ] 18 Phil. 58

[ G.R. No. 5809. December 22, 1910 ]

THE UNITED STATES, PLAINTIFF AND APPELLEE, VS. NICANOR CASTAÑEDA AND CRISPULO EDRALIN, DEFENDANTS AND APPELLANTS. D E C I S I O N

CARSON, J.:

While this case  was pending on appeal, the defendant, Nicanor Castaneda, withdrew his  appeal, and thereupon the judgment of conviction and the sentence imposed upon him by the trial court became final. The evidence of record sustains the finding by the trial court of the guilt of the appellant Crispulo Edralin, and we find no prejudicial error in the proceedings. We think, however,  that the facts disclosed by  the evidence of record in this case justified and required a rather severer penalty than that imposed by the court below.  The defendants were employed in the customs service, and attempted to sell five cans of opium to a Chinese storekeeper in the city of Manila.  Such a violation of  the provisions of the Opium Law is, to our minds, a  much more reprehensible act than the mere smoking of opium by a victim of the vice.  This court  has  always readily affirmed  the imposition of the minimum penalty, as now prescribed by law,  upon first offenders charged only with smoking opium, or having in.their possession  such  small quantities of  the drug as to justify the inference that it was intended merely for the personal use of the offender.   But  we think that within the discretionary  limits authorized by law a much higher and  severer penalty may, and properly should, be imposed on  those who attempt to “exploit the vice,” and who  violate the provisions of the law  for the purpose of gain. The sentence of the lower court should be modified by imposing on the appellant, Crispulo Edralin,  a fine of P500 in addition to the penalty of imprisonment imposed by the trial court, with the corresponding subsidiary imprisonment in the event of insolvency and failure to pay the fine, and, thus modified,  the  judgment  of conviction   and  sentence appealed from should  be  affirmed with one-half the costs of this appeal against the appellant. Arellano,  C. J., ‘Torres, Mapa, Johnson, and Trent, JJ., concur.