TITLE: THE UNITED STATES vs JUAN PONS

G.R. NO. 11530 DATE: August 12, 1916

PONENTE: Trent, J TOPIC: Duty to keep Journals and Records -
Probative Value of the Journal
FACTS OF THE CASE:
Juan Pons, along with Gabino Beliso and Jacinto Lasarte were charged with the crime of illegal
introduction, importation, receipt and concealment of opium from Spain on board the steamer Lopez y
Lopez, into Manila, 520 tins of 125 kg of opium of the value of Php 62,400. Jacinto Lasarte was not found
and Gabino Beliso withdrew his appeal and his judgment became final, and Juan Pons was found guilty
and sentenced to two years in prison to pay a fine of Php 3,000.
PROCEDURAL HISTORY:
Pons filed a motion alleging that the court erred (1) in denying his motion and (2) in finding that the legal
evidence of record establishes the guilt of the appellant, beyond reasonable doubt. Pons alleges that the
special session of the Philippine Legislature was on the February 28 1914, and that Act No. 2381 under
which Pons must be punished if found guilty, was not passed/approved until March 1 1914, and for that
reason it is null and void. On appeal, accused raised the question of the date of adjournment of the
legislature to determine the approval of the Act applicable to his charge.
STATEMENT OF ISSUE/S:
Whether or not the court can look to legislative journals as proof of when the adjournment of Legislature
happened.
HOLDING
Yes, the Court held that it can take judicial notice of the journals. The Court ruled to take notice of
legislative journals with regards to adjournment of the Legislature, which show that it did adjourn at 12
midnight on February 28 1914, however the Court does not question the validity of the Act; validity of the
act assumed to have been signed before this date. “In the case of Acts of the Philippine Commission or
the Philippine Legislature when there is in existence a copy signed by the presiding officers, it shall be
conclusive proof of the provisions of such Act and of due enactment thereof”. While there are no
adjudicated cases in this jurisdiction upon the exact question whether the courts may take judicial notice
of the legislative journals, it is well settled in the United States that such journals may be noticed by the
courts in determining the question whether a particular bill became a law or not. As the Constitution of the
Philippine Government is modeled after those of the Federal Government and the various states, we do
not hesitate to follow the courts in that country in the matter now before us. The result is that the law and
the adjudicated cases make it the Court’s duty to take judicial notice of the legislative journals of the
special session of the Philippine Legislature of 1914. These journals are not ambiguous or contradictory
as to the actual time of the adjournment. To question the Journals’ truthfulness 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 Government, and to interfere with the legitimate
powers and functions of the legislature. Pons’ witness cannot be given due weight against the
conclusiveness of the Journals which is an act of legislature. Additionally, the SC passed upon the
conclusiveness of the enrolled bill in this particular case. They show, with absolute certainty, that the
Legislature adjourned sine die at 12 o'clock midnight on February 28, 1914. Hence, the courts may go
behind the legislative journals for the purpose of determining the date of adjournment when such journals
are clear and explicit.
notes, if any:
EVIDENCE; DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE; LEGISLATIVE JOURNALS; JUDICIAL NOTICE. — The
courts in the Philippine Islands are bound, judicially, to take notice of what the law is and, to enable them

1
to determine whether the legal requisites to the validity of a statute have been complied with, it is their
right, as well as their duty, to take notice of the legislative journals.