[1917V101E] United States Vs. S. Miyamoto 036 Phil 762

"That the Japanese letter hereto attached was written and signed by him in San Ramon prison, and that he has heard read the translation of said letter which is hereto attached, and that the same is true and correct. "That he wrote said letter without advice, intimidation, threat, or promise of reward, from any person or persons whatsoever, and for the purpose of doing justice and correcting his false testimony heretofore given. That prior to the writing of said letter he has never talked with Miyamoto or with his attorneys, except once with his attorneys P. J. Moore and J. F. Yeager in San Ramon prison in the presence of the superintendent, Mr. J. B. Cooley. "That the contents of the letter and the statements therein contained are absolutely true and correct, and that S. Miyamoto was in no way connected with the importation, purchase, or sale of the opium for which he was convicted, and that this affiant was induced to swear falsely before the court by Captain H. H. Elarth, and the prosecuting attorney's office in Zamboanga, P. I. "Further affiant sayeth not. (Sgd.) "D. ADZUMA. "In the presence of three witnesses. "Subscribed and sworn to before me this 9th day of March, 1917. (Sgd.) P. J. Moore, notary public. My commission expires Dec. 31, 1918, notarial No. 107, Page No. 23, Int. Rev. 20c." If we are to believe the affidavit of Adzuma, then Miyamoto had no connection with the importation of the opium. But, then we read carefully this affidavit and contrast it with the circumstances surrounding the trial of Miyamoto and the clear and consistent testimony of Adzuma at the trial, we are forced to the conclusion that Adzuma told the truth at the trial and now, for some hidden reason at which one can only guess, desires to acquit his employer. To say, for instance, that Captain Elarth coerced Adzuma into testifying as he did, while a claim not unusual after conviction, is far from establishing the fact. However, for the purpose of disposing finally of the case, let us assume that a new trial has been had and the affidavit of Adzuma has been admitted in evidence and given its proper weight ---- would there then be sufficient proof to convict Miyamoto? To resolve this question, we could easily make and analysis of the evidence. We could, however, not improve on the remarkably clear and well-reasoned decision of the trial court. We can, therefore, do no better than to quote the material parts of this decision. The court says that the evidence establishes the following facts: "On or about the 25th day of May, 1916, two Japanese, Adzuma and Morita, seta sail for Sandakan, British North Borneo, for Zamboanga in a vinta manned by three Moros named Balhani, Banzani and Indasan. The Japanese had in their possession 83 tins of opium and intended to land the same in the Philippine Islands near Zamboanga. "Sometime about 2 o'clock on the night of the 30th or the 31st of May, 1916, when the vinta was about 40 meters from the shore at Batolampon or Baturampon in the municipality and Province of Zamboanga, near the city of Zamboanga, the craft was overturned probably by the connivance of the Moros, and a valise with 77 cans of the opium was carried ashore to the Zamboanga mainland by one of the latter and buried. It was afterwards removed by the Moros to the neighboring island of Santa Cruz where a portion of it was again buried. The customs officers received notice of the landing of the opium and arrested the three Moros and the two Japanese, Adzuma and Morita. The Moros pointed out the place where the opium was concealed and 36 cans of it were found where it had been buried on the Island of Santa Cruz, Province of Zamboanga, to which place it had been surreptitiously removed by the Moros." Up to this point, however, the facts would connect Miyamoto with the illegal importation. But the court continues: "From the investigation of the Moros and the Japanese, Adzuma and Morita, it appeared that they were all acting as agents for some one else, and, their declarations implicating the defendant, Miyamoto, the prosecution of the present case was instituted. "The defendant is a Japanese who has been engaged in diving for pearls and pearl shells and in operating pearl fishing luggers for a number of years. He had acquired considerable property but for some time prior to May, 1916, had been in financial difficulties, his property having been turned over to a trustee who was collecting the rents and applying them in the payment of the defendant's debts. "The Japanese, Adzuma, had for a long time prior to April, 1916, been an employee or retainer of Miyamoto. Adzuma testifies that the defendant ordered him to go to Sandakan and wait there for his (Miyamoto's) arrival, that his passage was paid by Miyamoto, that he, Adzuma, went to Sandakan as instructed by Miyamoto about April 20 or 22, 1916, and waited there for the defendant who came on the same steamer with the other Japanese Morita, a few days later and that the three were lodged in the same hotel in Sandakan. The defendant admits that he went to Sandakan at this time but asserts that he went there for the purpose of purchasing a pearling lugger. He also admits that his baggage was at the same hotel where the other two Japanese were stopping but asserts that he (defendant) lived at another place. "Notwithstanding defendant's denials of all connection with the opium and his denial of having paid Adzuma's traveling expenses while there, the evidence is convincing that he did pay such expenses and that he, defendant, procured 82 tins of opium in Sandakan; that he, defendant, in Sandakan, engaged the three Moros, Balhani, Banzani and Indasan, to transport said opium in their vinta from Sandakan to a point in the Province of Zamboanga, Philippine Islands, near the city of Zamboanga; that in Sandakan he engaged the Japanese, Morita, to accompany his agent Adzuma on said voyage as an additional safeguard against treachery upon the part of the Moros; that he paid the Moros a sum in cash for this service in transporting the opium, promising them, through his agent, Adzuma, an additional sum upon the successful landing of the contraband; that he entrusted the 82 cans of opium to Adzuma and Morita in Sandakan for the purpose of having it transported under their supervision to the Philippine Islands. This is the opium which was actually brought into the Philippine Islands at Batulampon, landed there and a portion of which (36 tins) was exhibited as evidence in the case and identified as opium. "The connection of the defendant Miyamoto with the obtaining of the opium in Sandakan is established by the testimony of Adzuma, Morita, and Balhani; his intervention in the hiring of the vinta to bring the opium to the Philippine Islands by the declarations of Adzuma, Morita, Sahani and Balhani. "We are satisfied from the evidence that the defendant went to Sandakan for the purpose of procuring the opium and paid the expenses of Adzuma on the voyage, and while there, to bring the opium into the Philippine Islands. "The defendant's connection with the transaction is further substantiated by the fact that his two Japanese agents, Adzuma and Morita, after seeking in vain for the lost opium where the vinta capsized in Batulampon, returned to Zamboanga, went to the pearl lugger under defendant's control and sent word to the defendant to come to them there. Both Adzuma and Morita declare that Miyamoto came out to the lugger the same night and that Adzuma told him of the disaster of the loss of the opium. The defendant admits that they went for him and that he went as far as the wharf where he heard some unknown Japanese talking of the bringing in of opium. "Whereupon he says he went to the house of Mr. Langford and told him about it the same night. Langford says he told him the next morning. "Adzuma and Morita remained on board the defendant's lugger that night and the next day this same lugger (at defendant's orders, according to Adzuma's testimony) was taken to the waters wherein the opium was supposed to have been lost and search was made for the lost opium." Leaving out the portion of the decision which mentions Adzuma, we would still have present the testimony of the other agent, the Japanese Morita, the Moro Sahani, the three Moros Balhani, Banzani, and Indasan who transported the opium in their vinta, the admitted presence of Miyamoto in Sandakan at the same hotel with Adzuma and Morita, his intervention in the hiring of the Moros' vinta, and his dispatching of his lugger to the waters where the opium was supposed to have been lost to search for it. The court next takes up the defense and the evidence of good or bad character of the accused as follows: "The chief defense of the accused consists of testimony to the effect that he reported to the customs authorities certain facts in regards to the capsizing of the boat and the fact that it had opium aboard, the morning after the arrival of the two Japanese aboard his lugger. At this time however he gave no names of the culprits and what information he did give was already in the possession of the collector of customs before the defendant made his disclosure. It seems very evident therefore that the defendant to gave his information to the customs authorities in order to divert suspicion from himself. "The defendant stated on oath that on the night when Adzuma sent word to him from the lugger, he (Miyamoto) gave orders that the two Japanese be put off the boat. We find however that, when the names of the Japanese culprits were finally ascertained, he asked that they be not prosecuted and a few days later he secured cedulas is undenied and is corroborated by the signature of defendant to a form of affidavit on file in the Municipal Treasurer's office.