A.M. No. CA-01-10-P - Floria vs. Sunga

Case Summary (A.M. No. CA-01-10-P)

Petitioner / Appellee

The United States prosecuted and appealed in defense of the conviction below.

Respondent / Appellant

Juan Pons, separately tried, convicted of illegal importation of opium and sentenced; he appealed the conviction.

Key Dates and Temporal Context

Relevant dates include the alleged importation and investigative events of April 1915 (arrival of the Lopez y Lopez, discovery and seizure on or about April 10, 1915), legislative-adjournment dispute regarding February 28 versus March 1, 1914, the appellant’s motion dated May 6, 1915 (reproduced July 27, 1915), and the decision rendered by the court of last resort in 1916. The constitutional and statutory framework invoked is that in effect under the Act of Congress approved July 1, 1902 (the Organic/Philippine Commission framework in force at the time).

Applicable Law and Procedural Authorities

The prosecution charged violation of Act No. 2381 (the statutory prohibition under which Pons was punished if found guilty). The court’s treatment of legislative records and their evidentiary force relied on: the Act of Congress of July 1, 1902 (requiring legislative journals and publication), Act No. 1679 and rules 15 and 16 of the Legislative Procedure of the Philippine Commission (duty of the Secretary to keep and publish accurate journals), and provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure—specifically section 275 (mandating judicial recognition of official acts of the legislative, executive, and judicial departments) and section 313 (as amended by Act No. 2210) regarding proofs of official documents and legislative proceedings by journal or certified copies. American precedents cited by the court (e.g., State ex rel. Herron v. Smith; Capito v. Topping) were used to support the principle that courts may and should take judicial notice of legislative journals and not receive contradictory extrinsic evidence where journals are clear.

Procedural History

An information charged Beliso, Pons, and Lasarte with illegal importation and concealment of opium. Pons and Beliso were severed for separate trials; each was convicted in the court below. Pons was sentenced to two years’ imprisonment at Bilibid, a fine of P1,000, subsidiary imprisonment in case of insolvency, and payment of half the costs; Beliso’s appeal was withdrawn and his judgment became final. Pons appealed on multiple grounds (consolidated essentially into two principal contentions).

Issues Presented on Appeal

The appellant’s core contentions were twofold: (1) the trial court erred in denying his motion that attacked the validity of Act No. 2381 on the ground that the Legislature had adjourned before the Act was passed (challenging the date of enactment and relying on extraneous evidence to show adjournment on March 1, 1914); and (2) the evidence admitted at trial did not establish his guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.

Facts Found by the Trial Court

A shipment manifested as “wine” of twenty-five barrels arrived from Spain on the Lopez y Lopez and was consigned to Jacinto Lasarte. The shipper’s invoice and bill of lading were delivered by Beliso to customs broker Gregorio Cansipit and endorsed “Deliver to Don Gabino Beliso.” The twenty-five barrels reached Beliso’s warehouse; Beliso selected five of the barrels and directed employee Cornelius Sese to deliver them to Juan Pons at 144 Calle General Solano. Customs agents, investigating suspicious shipments manifested as wine, traced the twenty-five barrels to Beliso’s warehouse via registry and entry numbers. On April 10, 1915, agents found only twenty barrels at Beliso’s warehouse; Sese, arrested at the warehouse, told agents he had delivered five barrels to Pons. The agents located the five barrels at Pons’s designated address; the barrels were empty with tins and staves nearby, and agents found 77 tins of opium in a basket at that address. Clothing bearing the initials “J. P.” and a lease signed “F. C. Garcia, by Juan Pons” were discovered linking Pons to the premises. Three barrels returned to the customhouse and opened contained large tins fitted into the barrel heads; each large tin contained 75 small tins of opium, totaling 195 tins in the three opened barrels. Pons was arrested at Beliso’s premises, taken to Captain Hawkins, and—according to Hawkins—made admissions implicating himself and Beliso: he indicated how the barrels were opened, admitted delivering about 250 tins to a Chinaman on Beliso’s instructions on the morning of April 10, admitted prior partnership with Beliso in opium transactions, and acknowledged leasing the house at 144 for handling the drug. Pons offered varying explanations, including an asserted correspondence from a “F. C. Garcia,” but he also admitted destroying such a letter and provided inconsistent accounts as to Garcia’s existence and occupation.

Court’s Analysis: Judicial Notice of Legislative Journals and the Adjournment Dispute

The appellant’s collateral attack on Act No. 2381 required proof that the Philippine Legislature had adjourned before the Act’s enactment. The court examined whether the date of adjournment is proven by the legislative journals and whether the court may take judicial notice of those journals. The journals of the Philippine Commission and the Assembly were on their face explicit: both recorded adjournment sine die at 12 o’clock midnight on February 28, 1914. The court relied on statutory provisions requiring journals and authorizing judicial recognition of official acts (section 275 of the Code of Civil Procedure and section 313 as amended), and on established judicial practice (cited American cases) holding legislative journals to be the proper and unimpeachable public memorials of legislative action. The court reasoned that legislative records are of the same weight as judicial records and that permitting extraneous oral recollection to contradict clear journals would undermine public policy, stability, and reliance on published law. Accordingly, where journals are clear and explicit, courts should not admit extrinsic evidence to contradict them.

Court’s Conclusion on the Adjournment and Validity of Act No. 2381

Because both the Commission’s and the Assembly’s journals unequivocally recorded adjournment at midnight of February 28, 1914, the court refused to go behind those recor

Case Syllabus (A.M. No. CA-01-10-P)

Citation and Panel

Reported as 34 Phil. 729; G.R. No. 11530; decision dated August 12, 1916.
Opinion delivered by Justice Trent.
Justices Torres, Johnson, Moreland, and Araullo concurred.

Charge and Information

The information charged Gabino Beliso, Juan Pons, and Jacinto Lasarte with the crime of illegal importation of opium.
Allegation of offense: on or about April 10, 1915, the accused, conspiring together, brought from Spain to Manila, Philippine Islands, on board the steamer Lopez y Lopez, and imported 520 tins containing 125 kilograms of opium, valued at P 62,400, Philippine currency.
The information further charged that the accused received and concealed the said opium and aided each other in its transportation, receipt and concealment after importation, knowing the importation was unlawful.

Defendants, Separate Trials, and Appellate Posture

Defendants named: Gabino Beliso, Juan Pons, Jacinto Lasarte (Lasarte had not yet been arrested at the time of trial).
On motion of counsel, Juan Pons and Gabino Beliso were tried separately.
Each (Pons and Beliso) was found guilty; Lasarte was not tried at that time.
Sentences:
- Juan Pons: confinement in Bilibid Prison for two years; fine of P 1,000; corresponding subsidiary imprisonment in case of insolvency; payment of one-half of the costs.
- Gabino Beliso: same confinement and subsidiary imprisonment; fine of P 3,000; payment of one-half of the costs.
Appeals:
- Both defendants appealed.
- Beliso later withdrew his appeal; judgment as to Beliso became final.
- The appeal of Juan Pons was prosecuted to this Court.

Assignments of Error and Essence of Appeal

Appellant Pons filed numerous assignments of error (twenty-five), reiterated in various propositions in a lengthy brief.
The core contentions, distilled by the Court, were:
- (a) The trial court erred in denying appellant’s motion dated May 6, 1915 (reproduced July 27, 1915).
- (b) The court erred in finding that the legal evidence of record established appellant’s guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.
The motion sought to challenge the validity of the statute under which Pons could be punished (Act No. 2381) on the ground that it was passed after the special session of the Philippine Legislature had adjourned.

Motion Regarding Date of Adjournment and Validity of Act No. 2381

Counsel for appellant alleged: the last day of the special session of the Philippine Legislature for 1914 was February 28, 1914 (as per the Governor-General’s proclamation); Act No. 2381 was not passed or approved on February 28 but on March 1, 1914; therefore Act No. 2381 was void as beyond the session.
Two subsidiary legal questions framed by the Court from this motion:
- (1) How is the date of adjournment to be proved — by legislative journals or by extraneous evidence?
- (2) May the court take judicial notice of the legislative journals?

Legislative Records and Statutory Background Relied Upon

Act No. 1679: provides that the Secretary of the Commission shall perform duties akin to those of the Recorder of the Commission under existing law.
Legislative Procedure, Rules 15 and 16: mandate that proceedings of the Commission be briefly and accurately stated on the journal and that the Secretary keep a correct journal of proceedings.
Commission Journal (vol. 7, p. 793) for the ordinary and special sessions of the Third Philippine Legislature records:
- “The Journal for Saturday, February 28, 1914, was approved. Adjournment sine die of the Commission as a Chamber of the Philippine Legislature. The hour of midnight having arrived, on motion of Commissioner Palma, the Commission, as a Chamber of the Philippine Legislature, adjourned sine die.”
Act of Congress of July 1, 1902, section 7: requires the Philippine Assembly to keep a journal of its proceedings, which shall be published.
Published Assembly journal (vol. 9, p. 1029) for sessions of 1914 records adjournment sine die at 12 o’clock midnight on February 28, 1914.
Code of Civil Procedure, section 275: official acts of the legislative, executive, and judicial departments of the United States and of the Philippine Islands shall be judicially recognized without introduction of proof; court may receive evidence when necessary and resort to appropriate books, documents or evidence.
Code of Civil Procedure, section 313 (as amended by sec. 1 of Act No. 2210): provides modes of proving official documents; specifically recognizes journals of the Philippine Commission or other legislative bodies, published statutes or copies certified by clerks or secretaries; a copy of an Act signed by presiding officers and secretaries shall be conclusive proof of its provisions and due enactment.

Court’s Analysis on Judicial Notice and Prima Facie Effect of Legislative Journals

The Court considered whether it could take judicial notice of the legislative journals and whether it should accept journals as conclusive as to adjournment date without examining extraneous evidence.
The Court noted the absence of directly adjudicated local cases but relied on established United States precedents permitting courts to notice legislative journals when determining if a particular bill became law (citing State ex rel. Herron v. Smith, 44 Ohio 348, and cases cited therein).
The Court concluded it was its duty to take judicial notice of the legislative journals of the special session of 1914.
The journals were clear and unambiguous: they established adjournment sine die at 12 midnight on February 28, 1914.
The Court refused to entertain extraneous evidence (e.g., oral testimony concerning a stopped clock) to vary the
...continue reading