People vs Ah Sing

G.R. No. 13005
Ah Sing, a Chinese fireman, brought opium from Saigon to Cebu on the Shun Chang. Found guilty of illegal importation, he was sentenced to two years imprisonment and fined.
illegal importation opium steamship

Case Digest (G.R. No. 13005)

Facts:

United States v. Ah Sing, G.R. No. 13005. October 10, 1917, the Supreme Court, Malcolm, J., writing for the Court.

The plaintiff-appellee was the United States; the defendant-appellant was Ah Sing, a Chinese subject employed as a fireman on the steamship Shun Chang. The defendant was charged under Section 4 of Act No. 2381 (the Opium Law) for unlawfully importing opium into the Philippine Islands. The Court of First Instance of Cebu convicted Ah Sing and sentenced him to two years' imprisonment, a fine of P300 (or subsidiary imprisonment in case of insolvency), and costs. The defendant appealed to the Supreme Court.

The proven facts are that the foreign steamer Shun Chang arrived at Cebu on April 25, 1917, after a direct voyage from Saigon. While on board during that voyage, Ah Sing bought eight cans of opium in Saigon and kept them in his possession aboard the vessel. Upon the steamer's arrival and search in Cebu, authorities discovered the eight cans hidden in the ashes beneath the engine boiler. Ah Sing confessed ownership and that he had purchased the opium in Saigon but did not state any purpose for the purchase or that he intended to import the opium into the Philippine Islands. No other direct or indirect evidence of intent to import was introduced at trial.

On appeal the central contest was whether the Government had proven illegal importation under Section 4 of Act No. 2381 when the prohibited drug was on board a foreign vessel that had come directly from a foreign port and anchored in a Philippine port, although the drug had not been landed. The Supreme Court reviewed earlier decisions, notably United States vs. Look Chaw (18 Phil. 573) an...(Pro-only)

Issues:

  • Did the prosecution prove the crime of unlawful importation under Section 4 of Act No. 2381 where the opium was in the defendant's control aboard a foreign vessel that came directly from a foreign port and anchored in a Philippine port but the drug was not discharged on shore?
  • Was the defendant's confession of ownership, together with the circumstances of possession aboard such a vessel, sufficient to permit an inference of in...(Pro-only)

Ruling:

  • (Pro-only)

Ratio:

  • (Pro-only)

Doctrine:

  • (Pro-only)
Unlock Full Case Digest