Close Reader

PHILIPPINE REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 033

Information | Reference
Copy Selection
Case Title: Select some text within a
THE UNITED STATES, plaintiff paragraph and click here to
and appellee, vs. SY LIONGCO, copy the selected text. Citation
defendant and appellant. included.
Citation: 33 Phil. 53

More... [No. 10498. December 24

1915.]
Search Result
THE UNITED STATE
1. by both such fine and plaintiff and appellee, vs.
imprisonment, in the discretion LIONGCO, defendant a
of the court." It is clear that the
action of this court in appellant.
augmenting the penalty in the
case at bar under the principle
announced in the Lim Sing case 1. ILLEGAL
is a repeal pro tanto of the POSSESSION
statute, inasmuch as it is .a
declaration that Courts of First, OPIUM;
Instance have no discretion so MODIFICATION
far as penalties are concerned, in
dealing with the ordinary cases
PENALTY
of the use, VOL. 33, DECEMBER APPEAL.—Citing
24, 1915. 61 United States vs.
case of United States
Sy Liongco. ownership,
possession, importation and sale Lim Sing (23 Phil. R
of opium. The denial of the right 424) and the recen
of a trial court to impose, under
the statute above quoted, a decided case of Uni
penalty of P1,000 for the States vs. Torres a
Importation of opium, which is
the case before us, or to
Padilla (15 Off. G
1345), a penalty of
2. ) to touch a penalty imposed months' imprisonm
by a trial court so long as that and a fine of P300 wh
penalty is within VOL. 33,
DECEMBER 24, 1915. 63 United was imposed by the t
States vs. Sy Liongco. the limits judge on a convict
fixed by law. The court is simply
authorized to review the record
the offense of the illeg
and the evidence and pronounce
such a "judgment as law and
justice shall dictate" (Code Crim.
Proc., sec. 50). While the
sentence is not specifically
mentioned in the provisions of
the Code of Criminal Procedure
54 PHILIPPINE REPORT
relating to appeals, it is in
practice a part of the judgment ANNOTATED
of conviction and we may
concede, for the sake of United States vs. Sy Liongco
argument, that it may be said to
be included therein, But even so,
the anthority to reverse a possession of a sm
judgment or modify a penalty quantity of opiu
extends only to those cases
where modified by reducing
term of imprisonm
from 9 months to
months; and t
notwithstanding the f
© Copyright 2020 Central Book Supply, Inc. All rights