United States vs. El Chino Que-Quenco

Ignorance of the law does not excuse a confirmed opium user from the prohibition against having opium outside the public dispensary under Act No. 1761, especially where the municipal treasurer testified that he advised the accused of the prohibition when issuing the license.

El Chino Que-Quenco was a confirmed opium user under the regulatory regime of Act No. 1761, which was enacted on October 10, 1907 and took effect on October 17, 1907. The Act prohibited confirmed users duly registered from having opium outside the public dispensary.

On October 30, 1907, El Chino Que-Quenco had opium in his possession and in his own house outside the public dispensary. This was proven not only by evidence adduced by the prosecution but also by the accused's confession at trial. He was a confirmed user of opium and held a license to smoke it issued by the municipal treasurer of Oroquieta on October 22, 1907.

The accused excused himself by saying that on October 30, the date the opium was found in his possession, he did not know that an Act had been promulgated prohibiting confirmed users of opium duly registered from having the drug outside the public dispensary, and that the municipal treasurer, on issuing the license, did not tell him of the existence of such a legal prohibition. The municipal treasurer categorically denied the statement of the accused and declared at the trial that, on issuing the license in October, he advised the accused that it was absolutely forbidden to have opium outside the public dispensary.

Act No. 1761 was enacted on October 10, 1907 and went into force on October 17, 1907. Twenty days had elapsed between October 30 and the date of the Act's passage.

• Ignorance of the Prohibition: El Chino Que-Quenco, defendant-appellant, argued that on October 30, 1907 he did not know that an Act had been promulgated prohibiting confirmed users of opium duly registered from having the drug outside the public dispensary, and that the municipal treasurer did not tell him of the prohibition when issuing the license.

• Violation of Act No. 1761: Whether the accused violated section 7 of Act No. 1761 by having opium in his possession and in his own house outside the public dispensary.
• Ignorance of the Law: Whether the accused's claim that he did not know of Act No. 1761's prohibition, and that the municipal treasurer did not inform him, excused him from liability.
• Penalty: Whether the penalty imposed by the lower court should be modified in view of all the circumstances.

• Violation of Act No. 1761: Yes. The accused had opium in his possession and in his own house outside the public dispensary, as proven by prosecution evidence and his own confession, and the lower court correctly held that he violated section 7.
• Ignorance of the Law: No. Ignorance of laws does not excuse compliance, and the municipal treasurer testified that he advised the accused that opium could not be kept outside the public dispensary.
• Penalty: The lower court's penalty was within statutory limits, but the SC reduced it to four months' imprisonment and a P300 fine, with subsidiary imprisonment not exceeding one month and ten days, in view of all the circumstances.

• Violation of Act No. 1761: Section 7 of Act No. 1761 prohibited confirmed users of opium duly registered from having the drug outside the public dispensary. The accused had opium in his possession and in his own house outside the public dispensary on October 30, 1907; this was proven not only by prosecution evidence but also by his confession at trial. The lower court's holding that he violated section 7 was therefore proper.

• Ignorance of the Law: Article 2 of the Civil Code provides that ignorance of laws does not excuse a person from compliance therewith. The accused's alleged ignorance was also factually untenable because the municipal treasurer categorically denied his statement and testified that, when issuing the license in October, he advised the accused that it was absolutely forbidden to have opium outside the public dispensary. The SC further noted that twenty days had elapsed between October 30 and the Act's passage, showing that the prohibition's existence was known in Oroquieta.

• Penalty: The penalty of one year of imprisonment and a fine of P500, or subsidiary imprisonment in case of insolvency at the rate of one day for every P2.50 that he should fail to pay, was within the limits of the punishment prescribed by section 7 and in the discretion of the court. In view of all the circumstances, however, the SC reduced the penalty to four months' imprisonment and a fine of P300, with the same subsidiary imprisonment not exceeding one month and ten days in case of insolvency.

• Ignorance of the law does not excuse compliance — Article 2 of the Civil Code provides that ignorance of laws does not excuse a person from compliance therewith. The SC applied this principle to reject the accused's claim that he did not know of Act No. 1761's prohibition and that the municipal treasurer did not inform him, especially since the treasurer testified that he had advised the accused of the prohibition.
• Prohibition on opium outside the public dispensary — Act No. 1761, section 7 prohibited confirmed users of opium duly registered from having the drug outside the public dispensary. The SC applied it to affirm the conviction because the accused had opium in his possession and in his own house outside the public dispensary.
• Penalty within statutory limits may be reduced on appeal — The lower court's penalty was within the limits prescribed by section 7 and in its discretion. The SC nevertheless reduced the penalty in view of all the circumstances of the case.

• "It is a fact proven not only by evidence adduced by the prosecution but also by the confession of the accused himself, made at the trial, that the said accused had opium in his possession and in his own house, outside of the public dispensary, on the 30th of October, 1907." — This establishes the factual basis for the conviction: possession of opium outside the public dispensary, proven by prosecution evidence and the accused's own confession.
• "Besides the well- known principle of law, expressly mentioned in article 2 of the Civil Code, that ignorance of laws does not excuse a person from compliance therewith, the alleged ignorance of the existence of the prohibition can not be admitted in the case at bar, even as a matter of fact, inasmuch as the municipal treasurer of Oroquieta categorically denying the statement of the accused, declared at the trial that, on issuing to him the license in the month of October, he advised him that it was absolutely forbidden to have opium outside of the public dispensary." — This rejects the accused's ignorance defense on both law and fact.
• "The penalty of one year of imprisonment and a fine of P500, or subsidiary imprisonment in case of insolvency at the rate of one day for every P2.50 that he should fail to pay, which penalty was imposed on the accused in the judgment appealed from, is within the limits of the punishment prescribed by the section, in the discretion of the court." — This confirms that the lower court's penalty was within the statutory range.
• "In view of all the circumstances of the case, however, we reduce the said penalty to four months' imprisonment and a fine of P300, with the same subsidiary imprisonment, which shall not exceed one month and ten days in case of insolvency." — This is the SC's modification of the penalty on appeal.

• Article 2, Civil Code — Ignorance of laws does not excuse a person from compliance therewith; the SC applied it to reject the accused's claim that he did not know of Act No. 1761's prohibition.
• Section 7, Act No. 1761 — Prohibited confirmed users of opium duly registered from having the drug outside the public dispensary; the SC held the accused violated it and that the lower court's penalty was within the section's limits.