US VS AH SING

GR No. L-13005; Ocotber 10, 1917

Ponente: J. Malcolm
FACTS:
Ah Sing is a subject of Chine employed as a fireman on the steamship Shun Chang, a foreign
steamer which arrived at the port of Cebu after a direct voyage from the port of Saigon. Ah Sing
bought 8 cans of opium in Saigon, brought them on board and had them in his possession during
the trip from Saigon to Cebu.
When steamer arrived in the port of Cebu, authorities found the 8 cans of opium hidden in the
ashes below the boiler of the steamers engine.
Ah Sing confessed that the same was his but didnt say anything to the purpose why he bought
them nor did he say that it was his intention to import the prohibited drug.
Theres no evidence, direct or indirect, to show that the intention of the accused was to illegally
import the opium in the country.
ISSUE: W/N crime of illegal importation can be proven against Ah Sing
HELD:
It is to be noted that Sec. 4 Act. No 2381 begins, any person who shall unlawfully import or
bring any prohibited drug into the Philippine islands. The words, import and bring are
synonymous. The Federal Courts of the US have held that the mere act of going into a port,
without breaking bulk is prima facie evidence of importation.
Importation: NOT the making entry of goods at the custom house, but merely the act of bringing
them into port; and the importation is complete before entry of the Custom House.
As applied to the Opium Law: Court expressly hold that any person unlawfully imports/brings
any prohibited drug in the Philippine islands, when the prohibited drug is found under this
persons control on a vessel which has come direct from a foreign country and is within the
jurisdictional limits of the Philippine Islands. In such case, person is guilty of illegal importation
of the drug unless contrary circumstances exist or the defense proves otherwise.
In the case at bar, it would be absurd to think that the accused was merely carrying opium back
and forth bet. Saigon & Cebu for mere pleasure. It would likewise be impossible to conceive that
the accused needed so large an amount of opium for his personal use. No better explanation
being possible, the logical deduction is that the defendant intended this opium to be brought into
the Philippine islands.

Therefore, the Court accordingly found that there was illegal importation of opium from a
foreign country into the Philippines. To anticipate any possible misunderstanding, let it be said
that these statements dont relate to foreign vessels in transit, a situation is not present.
NOTES:
The court looked into and differentiated this case from the Look Chaw case. In Look Chaw,
charges were illegal possession and sale of opium, the foreign vessel was in transit and the
opium was landed from the vessel upon Philippine soil.
In the case at bar, the charge was illegal importation of opium. Foreign vessel wasnt in transit
and the opium was not landed in Philippine soil.
US v. Jose: Defendants in case were acquitted since drug wasnt proven to be imported although
found in the vessel. Obiter dicta in that case was used in this case, i.e. the importation was
complete, it was not necessary that the opium discharge or that it be taken from the ship, it was
sufficient that the opium was brought into the waters of the Philippine islands on a boat destined
for a Philippine port and which subsequently anchored in a port of the Philippine islands with
intent to discharge cargo.