[ G.R. No. 8956. February 04, 1914 ] 26 Phil. 598
[ G.R. No. 8956. February 04, 1914 ]
THE UNITED STATES, PLAINTIFF AND APPELLEE, VS. FRANCISCO VALERA ANG Y, DEFENDANT AND APPELLANT. D E C I S I O N
CARSON, J.:
The accused pleaded guilty in the court below to a charge of a violation of the Opium Law, in that, as set forth in the information, he was found with ten grams of opium ashes in his possession and under his control. The minimum penalty prescribed by law for this offense (a fine of P300) was imposed, and the only contention of counsel on this appeal is that this penalty is excessive.
Whether or not the penalties prescribed by law upon conviction of violations of particular statutes are too severe or are not severe enough are questions as to which commentators on the law may fairly differ; but it is the duty of the courts to enforce the will of the legislator in all cases unless it clearly appears that a given penalty falls within the prohibited class of excessive fines or cruel and unusual punishments. Manifestly a fine of P300 prescribed for the violation of the provisions of the Opium Law does not fall within the prohibited class of penalties.
The question is not whether, in the opinion of the court, the minimum fine prescribed by law is in excess of that which the court might consider expedient or advisable were it called upon to prescribe such penalty. The exercise of discretion in this regard is conferred not upon the court but upon the legislator. Hence the courts will be justified in declaring a fine prescribed by statute to be excessive, only in those cases where it is so clearly so, considering the nature of the violation of the law for which it is prescribed, that all right-minded men will agree that it exceeds the utmost limit of punishment which the vindication of the law demands.
In a former case we discussed at length the nature and the gravity of the injury to the body politic which it is asserted would result from the unchecked spread of the opium habit, and we then expressed our belief that the legislator was clearly within his prerogative in enacting the statute defining and penalizing the unauthorized use of the drug and its derivatives. (U. S. vs. Lim Sing, 23 Phil. Rep.,424.) Adhering to the doctrine and the reasoning of that opinion we have no hesitation in holding that in prescribing a minimum penalty of P300 for the violations of the penal provisions of that statute, the legislator did not exceed the limits of the discretion conferred upon him in that regard, and that this penalty is not therefore excessive in the sense in which that word is used in the Philippine Bill of Rights.
The judgment of the lower court convicting and sentencing the defendant and appellant should be and is hereby affirmed, with the costs of this instance against him.
Arellano, C. J., Torres and Trent, JJ., concur.