US v. Pons Case Digest

US v. Pons 
34 Phil 729

Digest by Kirk Yngwie Enriquez

Facts:

Gabino Beliso, Juan Pons, and Jacinto Lasarte were charged with illegal importation of opium. On the 5th or 6th of April 1915, the Spanish steamer Lopez y Lopez arrived at Manila from Spain bringing 25 barrels which were manifested as wine and consigned to Jacinto Lasarte. Gabino Beliso had been engaged in the business as a wine merchant, with an office and warehouse located at 203 Calle San Anton in Manila. The shipper’s invoice and bill of lading for the 25 barrels were delivered to Gregorio Cansipit, a customs broker, by Beliso. Cansipit conducted negotiations and 25 barrels were delivered in due course to the warehouse of Beliso. Beliso signed the paper acknowledging delivery. Thereafter, the custom authorities, having noticed that shipments of merchandise manifested as wine were consigned to persons whose names were not listed as merchants and having some doubt as to the nature of merchandise, instituted an investigation and traced on April 10, 1915 the 25 barrels to Beliso’s warehouse. It was found that the 25 barrels began to arrive on bull carts at Beliso’s warehouse about 11AM of April 9. Before the merchandise arrived at that place, the appellant, Juan Pons, went to Beliso’s warehouse and the 2 had a conversation. Pons then left and thereafter several of the barrels arrived in Beliso’s bodega. Beliso then carefully selected 5 barrels out of the shipment and told his employee Sese to deliver them to Juan Pons at 144 Calle General Solano. The barrels were delivered to Pons. Pursuing their investigation, the customs secret service agents entered Beliso’s bodega on the 10th before the office was opened and awaited for Beliso. Sese was found in the bodega and arrested. The agents only found 20 barrels in Beliso’s premises. The agents, upon being informed by Sese, proceeded to 144 Calle General Solano and found the missing 5 barrels, which were empty. The customs agents noticed several baskets of lime scattered about the basement and found 77 tins of opium in one of the baskets. It was found upon investigation that the owner of the house was Mariano Limjap, and that it was rented by one F.C. Garcia. The lease of the house was signed “F.C. Garcia, by Juan Pons”. They returned to the house of Beliso and selected three barrels and ordered them returned to the customhouse. Pons arrived at Beliso’s house and was placed under arrest. Pons showed the officers how to open the barrels and pointed out that the end of the barrel contained opium. Pons further stated that he had delvered some 250 tins of opium to a Chinaman at 7:30am in the morning of April 10, following the instructions of Beliso. Pons also admitted that he and Beliso had been partners in several opium transactions. At first Pons stated that F.C. Garcia was a tobacco merchant traveling in and between the provinces of Isabela and Cagayan, but later retracted and admitted that Garcia was a fictitious person. However, during the trial, Pons testified that Garcia was a wine merchant and a resident of Spain, and that Garcia wrote him a letter directing him to rent a house. Pons said he destroyed the letter because he feared that it would compromise him.

The information reads: “…import and introduce 520 tins containing 125 kilograms of opium of the value of P62,400…did receive and conceal the said quantity of opium and aided each other in the transportation, receipt, and concealment of the same.”

On motion of counsel, Juan Pons and Gabino Beliso were tried separately. Each were found guilty of the crime charged and sentenced accordingly, respondent to be confined in Bilibid for a period of 2 years and pay a fine of p1,000, and suffer the corresponding subsidiary imprisonment in case of insolvency, and payment of ½ the costs. The same penalties for Gbino, except his fine was P3,000.
In his motion, counsel for respondent alleged and offered to prove that the last day of the special session of the Philippine Legislature for 1914 was the 28th day of Februaryl that Act No. 2381, under which Pons must be punished if found guilty, was not passed or approved on the 28th of February but on March 1 of 1914; and that therefore the same is null and void.

It is admitted that the last day of the special session was, under the Governor-General’s proclamation, February 28 and that the appellant is charged with having violated the provisions of Act No. 2381.


Issues:
WON the Court can take judicial notice of the journals.


Ruling:

Yes.

Act 1679 provides that the Secretary of the Commission shall perform the duties which would properly be required of the Recorder of the Commission under existing law.
Rules 15 and 16 of the Legislative Procedure of the Philippine Commission provides that the proceedings of the Commission shall be briefly and accurately stated on the journal.

Page 793 of the Volume 7 of the Commission Journal of the 3rd Philippine Legislature states that:
“The Journal for Saturday, Feb. 28, 1914, was approved. Adjournemt 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.’

Section 7 of The Act of Congress, approved July 1, 1902, provides that the Philippine Assembly shall keep a journal of its proceedings which shall be published. The journal of the Assembly’s proceedings for the sessions of 1914 was duly published and it appears therein that the Assembly adjourned sine die at 12 in the midnight of February 28, 1914.

Section 275 of the Code of Civil procedure provides that the existence of the official acts of the legislative, executive, and judicial departments of the US and the Philippine Islands shall be judicially recognized by the court without introduction of proof, but the court may receive evidence upon any of the subjects in this section when it shall find it necessary for its own information, and may resort for its aid to appropriate books, documents, or evidence.

Section 313 of the Code of Civil procedure, as amended by Act No. 220, provides two methods of proving legislative proceedings:

By the journals, or by published statutes or resolutions, or copies certified by the clerk or secretary or printed by their order; and

In case of acts of the Legislature, a copy signed by the presiding officers and secretaries thereof, which shall be conclusive proof of the provisions of such Acts and of the due enactment thereof.
It is well-settled in the US that such journals may be noticed by the courts in determining the question whether a particular bill became a law or not. The result is that the law and the adjudicated cases make it our duty to take judicial notice of the legislative journals of the special session of the Philippine Legislature og 1914. These journals are not ambiguous as to the actual time of the adjournment. They show with absolute certainty that the Legislature adjourned sine die at 12 in the midnight of February 28, 1914. To inquire into the veracity of the journals when they are clear and explicit would be to violate both the letter and spirit of the organic laws by which the Philippine Government was brought into existence. We do not hesitate to follow the courts in the US since the Constitution of the PH Government is modeled after that of the US Federal Government. The journals say that the Legislature adjourned at 12 midnight on February 28, 1914. This settles the question and the court did not err in declining to go behind the journals.