Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 36 views

    United States Vs Juan Pons

    Uploaded by

    Jaime Ramos, Jr.
    1) Juan Pons and Gabino Beliso were trading partners who received barrels that were reported to contain wine but actually contained opium, which was illegal. 2) Pons appealed his conviction by arguing that the law making opium trafficking illegal was approved after the legislative session had ended, so it was invalid. 3) The Supreme Court refused to look beyond the legislative journals, which stated the law was approved before the session ended, finding the journals to be conclusive evidence of the law's valid approval.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    United States Vs Juan Pons

    Uploaded by

    Jaime Ramos, Jr.
    36 views1 page
    1) Juan Pons and Gabino Beliso were trading partners who received barrels that were reported to contain wine but actually contained opium, which was illegal. 2) Pons appealed his conviction by arguing that the law making opium trafficking illegal was approved after the legislative session had ended, so it was invalid. 3) The Supreme Court refused to look beyond the legislative journals, which stated the law was approved before the session ended, finding the journals to be conclusive evidence of the law's valid approval.

    Original Description:

    A landmark case for Stat Con.

    Original Title

    United States vs Juan Pons

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    1) Juan Pons and Gabino Beliso were trading partners who received barrels that were reported to contain wine but actually contained opium, which was illegal. 2) Pons appealed his conviction by arguing that the law making opium trafficking illegal was approved after the legislative session had ended, so it was invalid. 3) The Supreme Court refused to look beyond the legislative journals, which stated the law was approved before the session ended, finding the journals to be conclusive evidence of the law's valid approval.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    36 views1 page

    United States Vs Juan Pons

    Uploaded by

    Jaime Ramos, Jr.
    1) Juan Pons and Gabino Beliso were trading partners who received barrels that were reported to contain wine but actually contained opium, which was illegal. 2) Pons appealed his conviction by arguing that the law making opium trafficking illegal was approved after the legislative session had ended, so it was invalid. 3) The Supreme Court refused to look beyond the legislative journals, which stated the law was approved before the session ended, finding the journals to be conclusive evidence of the law's valid approval.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    of 1

    United States vs Juan Pons 34 Phil.

    729

    Juan Pons and Gabino Beliso were trading partners. On April 5, 1914, the steamerLopez y
    Lopez arrived in Manila from Spain and it contained 25 barrels of wine. The said barrels of
    wine were delivered to Beliso. Beliso subsequently delivered 5 barrels to Pons house. On
    the other hand, the customs authorities noticed that the said 25 barrels listed as wine on
    record were not delivered to any listed merchant (Beliso not being one). And so the customs
    officers conducted an investigation thereby discovering that the 25 barrels of wine actually
    contained tins of opium. Since the act of trading and dealing opium is against Act No. 2381,
    Pons and Beliso were charged for illegally and fraudulently importing and introducing such
    contraband material to the Philippines. Pons appealed the sentence arguing that Act 2381
    was approved while the Philippine Commission (Congress) was not in session. He said that
    his witnesses claim that the said law was passed/approved on 01 March 1914 while the
    special session of the Commission was adjourned at 12MN on February 28, 1914. Since this
    is the case, Act 2381 should be null and void.
    ISSUE: Whether or not the SC must go beyond the recitals of the Journals to determine if Act
    2381 was indeed made a law on February 28, 1914.
    HELD: The SC looked into the Journals to ascertain the date of adjournment but the SC
    refused to go beyond the recitals in the legislative Journals. The said Journals are conclusive
    on the Court and to inquire into the veracity of the journals of the Philippine Legislature, when
    they are, as the SC have said, clear and explicit, would be to violate both the letter and the
    spirit of the organic laws by which the Philippine Government was brought into existence, to
    invade a coordinate and independent department of the Government, and to interfere with
    the legitimate powers and functions of the Legislature. Pons witnesses cannot be given due
    weight against the conclusiveness of the Journals which is an act of the legislature. The
    journals say that the Legislature adjourned at 12 midnight on February 28, 1914. This settles
    the question, and the court did not err in declining to go beyond these journals. The SC
    passed upon the conclusiveness of the enrolled bill in this particular case.

    You might also like