United States v. Tan Goy
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: The defendants and appellants were convicted in the court below for the offense of unlawful possession of opium. Procedural History: The trial court found the defendants and appellants guilty of the offense. The Petition: The defendants and appellants contended lack of jurisdiction in the trial court and variance between the proof as to the place of possession of opium and the place alleged in the information.
Issue(s)
Whether the trial court had jurisdiction over the offense. Whether the variance between the place alleged in the information and the place where the offense was proven to have been committed constitutes reversible error. Whether subsidiary imprisonment should have been expressly provided for in the event of insolvency and nonpayment of fines.
Ruling
The judgment convicting and sentencing the appellants is affirmed, modified by adding thereto a provision for subsidiary imprisonment in the event of insolvency and nonpayment of fines. A proportionate part of the costs in this instance is assessed against each of them.
Ratio Decidendi
On the issue of jurisdiction: The contention of counsel as to the lack of jurisdiction in the trial court are manifestly untenable in the light of the express provisions of section 1 of Act No. 400 amending Act. No. 136. The evidence of record fully and conclusively sustains the findings of facts by the trial judge, leaving no room for reasonable doubt as to the guilt of the defendants and appellants. On the issue of variance: The contentions of counsel based upon the variance of the proof as to the place where the accused had the opinion in their possession and the place alleged in the information cannot be sustained. This is because the place where the offense was shown to have been committed was within the jurisdiction of the court. Furthermore, there was no reason to apprehend that the accused were misled or surprised by the variance between the proof and the allegations in the information as to the place where the offense was committed. Unless time or place constitute an essential element of the offense charged, variance between the allegations and the proof touching the time and place where the alleged crime was committed do not constitute reversible error on appeal where the evidence discloses that the offense was in fact committed within the trial territorial jurisdiction of the court, and within the period of prescription for the prosecution of the alleged offense under the statute of limitation, and where there is no reason to believe that the accused has been misled by the allegations as to the offense for which he was tried, or that he was unfairly surprised by the introduction of evidence as to the commission of an offense at a different time or place from that charged in the complaint or information. Neither time nor place constitute an essential element of the offense of unlawful possession of opium as defined and penalized in the Opium Law. On the issue of subsidiary imprisonment: The Court found no error in the proceedings prejudicial to the rights of the accused. However, it was of the opinion that the trial court should have provided expressly for subsidiary imprisonment as prescribed by law in the event of insolvency and nonpayment of the fines imposed upon the convicts. Therefore, the judgment was modified to include this provision.
Main Doctrine
Variance between the allegations and the proof touching the time and place where the alleged crime was committed do not constitute reversible error on appeal where the evidence discloses that the offense was in fact committed within the trial territorial jurisdiction of the court, and within the period of prescription for the prosecution of the alleged offense under the statute of limitation, and where there is no reason to believe that the accused has been misled by the allegations as to the offense for which he was tried, or that he was unfairly surprised by the introduction of evidence as to the commission of an offense at a different time or place from that charged in the complaint or information, unless time or place constitute an essential element of the offense charged.