1. OPIUM LAW; PENALTY FOR POSSESSION OF OPIUM. — It is the practice of this court, in the exercise of its discretion, to impose the minimum penalty provided by law upon a person convicted for the first time of having a small quantity of opium in his possession. (U. S. s. Lim Sing [1912], 23 Phil., 424; U. S. v. Sy Liongco [1915], 33 Phil., 53; U. S. v. Ong Siu Hong [1917], 36 Phil., 735, and other cases.) Where, however, it is established that the accused is a person of standing in the community, there is sufficient reason for the imposition of a more severe penalty.

2. ID.; ID. — A justice of the peace, convicted of the illegal possession of various articles used in smoking opium and of a small amount of the drug, sentenced to four months imprisonment and a fine of P400.

Two Constabulary soldiers, taking a walk through the municipality of Naguilian, Province of Isabela, passed the house in which lived Francisco Gaffud, justice of the peace of Naguilian, and his wife Maria Anastacio. Thinking that they smelt opium, the soldiers passed into the yard and finding the doors and windows of the house closed, finally discovered an opening through which they looked into the house and saw Gaffud smoking opium. Returning to the cuartel, the soldiers reported to their commanding officer who procured a warrant from the judge of first instance for the search of the house occupied by Francisco Gaffud and his wife. In the possession of the wife Maria Anastasio, and elsewhere in the house, were found various articles used in smoking opium together with a small amount of the drug. During the trial of the case, the judge made an inspection of the house and found that the story of the soldier as to their being able to look through a hole and see Gaffud smoking opium was plausible. The sole witness for the defense was the accused Maria Anastasio, who confessed her guilt and endeavored to relieve her husband of criminal responsibility.

The trial court found the defendant and appellant Francisco Gaffud guilty as charged and sentenced him to three months imprisonment, to pay a fine of P300 or to suffer subsidiary imprisonment in case of insolvency, and to pay one-half of the costs. The findings of fact, on which this judgment is based, are in accord with the proof. The sentence likewise would ordinarily not be disturbed for it is the practice of this court, in the exercise of its discretion, to impose the minimum penalty provided by law upon a person convicted for the first time of having a small quantity of opium in his possession. (U. S. v. Lim Sing [1912], 23 Phil., 424; U. S. v. Sy Liongco [1915], 33 Phil., 53; U. S. v. Ong Siu Hong [1917], p. 735, ante, and other cases.) We should, however, consider one attendant circumstance herein as taking the facts out of the proper scope of this rule and as sufficient reason for the imposition of a more severe penalty — i. e., the defendant and appellant was a justice of the peace. The fall of an ignorant opium fiend might be condoned, as far as lies in judicial discretion. The violation of the same statute by a person of standing in the community, tending to exploit the vice and to bring the law into disrepute, cannot so easily be overlooked. In consequence of what has been said, we modify the judgment of the lower court and sentence the defendant and appellant to four months imprisonment, to pay a fine of P400, or to suffer subsidiary imprisonment in case of insolvency, and to pay one-half the costs of the first instance and the costs of this instance. So ordered.

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