G.R. No. 8946 - People vs Ah Tung

The case involves an appeal by defendant Lim Tiong Tim, who had been previously convicted in a lower court.
Lim Tiong Tim was sentenced to pay a fine of P1,000 or, in case of insolvency, to suffer subsidiary imprisonment.
The charge stemmed from an accusation of importing and introducing 976 grams of morphine into the Philippine Islands from a foreign country.

On November 21, 1912, the steamer Siberia was anchored in Manila Bay and tied at pier No. 5 in Manila.
Andrews, the supercargo of the steamer, was apprehended by a customs secret service agent while carrying two sacks of morphine ashore.
Andrews testified that he had received the morphine from a Chinaman on board the ship to deliver to another Chinaman located at house No. 389 on Calle Anloague.

Following Andrews’ arrest, customs secret service agent Larsen accompanied him to the address provided.
Upon entering the house, the agents found Lim Tiong Tim seated at a table with several other Chinamen present.
Andrews identified himself as coming from the steamer Siberia, prompting Lim Tiong Tim to speak in Chinese and inquire whether the agents had brought the morphine.
After confirmation that the two sacks were in their possession, Lim Tiong Tim took the sacks and, after verifying their number, concealed them under the table.

At the request of the agents, Lim Tiong Tim summoned another Chinaman, Hao You Kee, to prepare a receipt acknowledging the receipt of the morphine (documented as Exhibit B).
After the receipt was being prepared, agent Larsen informed both Lim Tiong Tim and Hao You Kee of their arrest.
Lim Tiong Tim attempted to escape but was quickly apprehended.
The subsequent trial involved Lim Tiong Tim along with his co-defendants Ah Tung and Hao You Kee, though only Lim Tiong Tim was convicted, while the other two were acquitted.
In a separate proceeding, Andrews pleaded guilty to the charge of illegal importation of morphine.

Lim Tiong Tim claimed that he had no prior knowledge of the morphine’s nature or its illegal importation.
He contended that the house where he was found did not belong to him.
He further alleged that the receipt prepared by Hao You Kee was executed under duress, as it was made when a revolver was drawn by the secret-service agent.

Whether the statements made by Andrews, which were not in the presence of Lim Tiong Tim, were admissible as evidence against him.
Whether the receipt prepared by Hao You Kee, allegedly executed under duress, should be allowed into evidence.

Whether the evidence establishing any relationship or prior association between Lim Tiong Tim and Andrews was probative of Lim Tiong Tim’s involvement in the crime.

Whether the evidence was sufficient to establish that Lim Tiong Tim knowingly received morphine, fully aware of its illegal importation.

Whether it was proper for the court to allow cross-examination regarding Lim Tiong Tim’s prior criminal conviction.
Whether the introduction of evidence pertaining to his previous sentence (before rendering a verdict on the substantive crime) was prejudicial and should have been excluded.