Scribd
Upload
132 views3 pages

US Vs Ten Yu

This case concerns the legality of an ordinance passed by Manila prohibiting visiting opium joints. [Ten Yu and others were found guilty in lower courts of violating this ordinance.] The Supreme Court upheld the ordinance as legal, finding that the Municipal Board of Manila had authority to enact it to prevent drug use. While the law does not intend to punish the innocent, its interpretation must presume innocence until proven guilty. Ordinances are presumed valid unless clearly unconstitutional, and courts cannot deem them illegal just for disagreeing with the legislature. The appeal was therefore dismissed.

Uploaded by

Clea Amber Fullante
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOC, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
132 views3 pages

US Vs Ten Yu

This case concerns the legality of an ordinance passed by Manila prohibiting visiting opium joints. [Ten Yu and others were found guilty in lower courts of violating this ordinance.] The Supreme Court upheld the ordinance as legal, finding that the Municipal Board of Manila had authority to enact it to prevent drug use. While the law does not intend to punish the innocent, its interpretation must presume innocence until proven guilty. Ordinances are presumed valid unless clearly unconstitutional, and courts cannot deem them illegal just for disagreeing with the legislature. The appeal was therefore dismissed.

Uploaded by

Clea Amber Fullante
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOC, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
You are on page 1/ 3

U.S. v. Ten Yu et.al.

DESCRIPTION OF THE CASE:

This case is about the legality of the ordinance enacted by the City of Manila regarding
the visitation and loitering in opium joint.

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

October 11, 1911 - A petition was complained against Ten Yu Et Al (respondents) in the
Municipal Court of Manila accusing them of violating Sec. 3 Ordinance 152 of Manila. They
allegedly visited an opium joint in No. 408 Calle Salazar, Binondo. After hearing the evidence,
Hon. Manuel Camus (Camus), judge of said court, found them guilty of the offenses charged and
fined them to pay P100. The defendants then appealed to the Court of First Instance (CFI) of
Manila.

Respondents presented a Demurer which contained the ff:


1. The Municipal Board of the City of Manila had no legal authority to enact it.
2. Allege that complaint is unreasonable since it punishes anyone who enters the opium joint
whether innocent or not, with or without lawful purpose, or with or without knowledge
regarding the nature of such place.
3. Ordinance ought to be null and void since it imposes a cruel and excessive punishments on
innocent persons.
4. The complaint against them does not have sufficient facts to constitute a public crime.

Hon. A.S. Crossfield said that it was similar to U.S. v. Chua with the ff stated:
1. Municipal Board had legal authority to enact said ordinance in the prevention of visiting or
keeping places where opium was smoked.
(Act No. 1716 amended and repealed Act No. 1461 of the Philippine commission)
2/3. A person who is innocent and lawful shall not conduct his/her business in a place known as
an opium joint.
4. There was not enough evidence to show that Dee Ong, Uy Chong, Chit Eng, Co Lo, Ong Tui Co,
Gaw Kee, and Tian Hi were guilty of the crime. However Ten Yu, Tin, Quac, Lim Yan, Ong To,
Yeng Sing, Co King were guilty of the crimes charged.

The defendants then appealed to the Supreme Court (SC) with the ff arguments:
1. Ordinance should be declared null and void since the Municipal Board of Manila does not have any
authority to enact such and ordinance.
2. The ordinance, insofar as sec. 3 is concerned, punishes any person who visits or is within any
placed where opium is smoked whether innocent or not, with or without lawful purpose, or
with or without knowledge regarding the nature of such place.
3. Ordinance should be declared null and void for it fines and punishes excessively innocent persons
without knowledge or criminal intent to violate its provisions.
4. Information filed in this case does not contain facts sufficient to constitute a public crime.
STATEMENT OF THE CASE:
Camus, Judge of the Municipal Court of Manila declared them to be guilty. The
Defendants appealed to the CFI and presented a demurrer against the allegations presented to
them. Hon. A.S. Corssfield, overruled the demurrer stating that it was similar to the U.S. v. Chua
Ong case. The defendants were unsatisfied with the decisions hence the petition to the
supreme court.

*Note*Demurrer - a response in a court proceeding in which the defendant does not dispute the
truth of the allegation but claims it is not sufficient grounds to justify legal action (Webster
Dictionary)

ISSUES:

Whether or not the ordinance 152 of Metro Manila is legal.

RULING:

Appeal is DISMISSED

Yes, the ordinance is legal. The municipal board of Manila had full authority to enact the
ordinance since it was in the scope of the legislative power that has been conferred to it as
mentioned in Section 11 of the Charter of Manila (Act no. 183).

In regards to the second assignment of error it is not in the intention of the law to
punish those who are innocent, hence the interpretation of the said ordinance must be in favor
of presuming persons innocent until proven by the prosecution that those who are being
alleged to have violated the law have violated the provisions or the spirit of the ordinance.

The construction of the said statute by the respondent is erroneous since it is in the
spirit of the law that only those with the intent to violate the law must be punished. Courts
presume that ordinances are valid unless it clearly violates the fundamental laws of the lands
for it is the duty of the legislature to determine the wisdom or advisability of a particular statue.
if it is in their constitutional power to enact then it is legal. Though the courts may disagree on
the interpretation of the legislative branch, but it is of no basis to pronounce a statue illegal.

If a court does proclaim statute illegal it is not because the courts have any control over
the legislative, but instead it is in violation of the fundamental laws of the land and because of
the will of the people.

DISPOSITIVE PORTION:

While we have discussed at length each of the assignment of error made by the
appellants (respondents), nevertheless, the only question, in fact, presented by the appeal
under the law, in the first instance, is whether or not the ordinance under which the defendants
were sentenced is legal. Having concluded that said ordinance is legal and within the express
powers of the Municipal board to enact, the appeal must be dismissed, with costs in this
instance against the appellants in equal parts.

It is therefore ordered and decreed, hereby, that the appeal be dismissed and that the
cause be remanded to the lower court for the execution of the sentence heretofore rendered.

You might also like

pFad - Phonifier reborn

Pfad - The Proxy pFad of © 2024 Garber Painting. All rights reserved.

Note: This service is not intended for secure transactions such as banking, social media, email, or purchasing. Use at your own risk. We assume no liability whatsoever for broken pages.


Alternative Proxies:

Alternative Proxy

pFad Proxy

pFad v3 Proxy

pFad v4 Proxy