You're currently signed in as:
User
Add TAGS to your cases to easily locate them or to build your SYLLABUS.
Please SIGN IN to use this feature.
https://www.lawyerly.ph/juris/view/ce056?user=fbGU2WFpmaitMVEVGZ2lBVW5xZ2RVdz09
[US v. MORO ALI AKBAL](https://www.lawyerly.ph/juris/view/ce056?user=fbGU2WFpmaitMVEVGZ2lBVW5xZ2RVdz09)
{case:ce056}
Highlight text as FACTS, ISSUES, RULING, PRINCIPLES to generate case DIGESTS and REVIEWERS.
Please LOGIN use this feature.
Show printable version with highlights

[ GR No. 12474, Oct 13, 1917 ]

US v. MORO ALI AKBAL +

DECISION

37 Phil. 5

[ G.R. No. 12474, October 13, 1917 ]

THE UNITED STATES, PLAINTIFF AND APPELLEE, VS. MORO ALI AKBAL, DEFENDANT AND APPELLANT.

D E C I S I O N

CARSON, J.:

The accused pleaded guilty to a violation of Act No. 2381 set forth as follows in the information: 

"That on or about the 1st day of November, 1916, in the municipality of Jolo, Province of Sulu, Department of Mindanao and Sulu, Philippine Islands, the said accused did willfully, unlawfully, and criminally have in his possession, subject to or under his authority or control, four tins containing about 1 kilogram of prepared opium, and did convey and carry with him said tins of opium, with the intent and purpose of selling them or delivering them to other persons, the said accused not being authorized by law, nor in any other manner authorized, so to do; with violation of law."

The trial judge imposed a penalty of nine months' imprisonment and a fine of P300.

The only contention in this court in behalf of the appellant is that the penalty imposed is too severe, having in mind the nature of the offense of which he was convicted: but adhering to the views announced in the case of United States vs. Castaneda and Edralin (18 Phil. Rep., 58) and United States vs. Lim Sing (23 Phil. Rep., 424), we do not think that we should disturb the action of the trial judge in this regard.

We find no error in the proceedings prejudicial to the rights of the accused, and conclude that the judgment entered in the court below should be affirmed with the costs of this instance against the appellant. So ordered.

Arellano, C. J., Johnson, Araullo, Street, and Malcolm, JJ., concur.

Judgment affirmed.


tags