Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence


Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence > Year 1912 > August 1912 Decisions > [G.R. No. 6612. August 31, 1912.] THE UNITED STATES, Plaintiff-Appellee, vs. CHAN GUY JUAN (alias Chino Aua), Defendant-Appellant.:




FIRST DIVISION

[G.R. No. 6612.  August 31, 1912.]

THE UNITED STATES, Plaintiff-Appellee, vs. CHAN GUY JUAN (alias Chino Aua), Defendant-Appellant.

 

D E C I S I O N

TRENT, J.:

The facts of this case are these: On the morning of the 26th of May, 1910, the steamer Ton-Yek anchored in the Bay of Calbayog, Samar. A Chinaman named Lee See (alias Tuya), one of the passengers, disembarked and went to the house of the Appellant, Chan Guy Juan (alias Aua) in the town of Calbayog, where the two had a somewhat lengthy conversation. Lee See returned to the boat and the Appellant employed one Isidro Cabinico to go alongside of the steamer with his baroto and receive from the said Lee See a certain sack containing, as the Appellant said, sugar. On arriving at the steamer, Lee See, who was on deck, tied a rope around the sack, and lowered it into Cabinico’s baroto. The latter, while on his way to the house of the Appellant with the sack and its contents, was arrested and the contents of the sack examined and found to consist of a small amount of sugar and twenty-eight cans of opium.  This opium was confiscated by the local authorities and separate criminal charges instituted against the two Chinamen and Cabinico. Upon investigation by the provincial fiscal, the case against Cabinico was dismissed, while those against the two Chinamen were proceeded with, resulting in the conviction of both. Both appealed, and the sentence imposed upon Lee See has heretofore been affirmed by this court.

It clearly appears from the record that Cabinico did not know the contents of the sack which he received from Lee See and which was on his way to deliver to the Appellant. It insisted that it cannot be said, under these facts, that the Appellant had possession or control of the twenty-eight cans of opium. It is true that the Appellant never had actual physical possession of the opium, but it must be remembered that while he employed Cabinico to go to the steamer and receive, as he said, a certain amount of sugar from his countryman Lee See and bring the same to him, he knew that the sack which Cabinico would receive contained very little sugar and a large quantity of opium.

The expression “having possession of” in section 31 of Act No. 1761 is somewhat ambiguous. It is clear that the law never intended to hold a person guilty of the possession of the prescribed drug when in fact he merely had the custody of the same without knowledge of its nature, and this court so held in disposing of the case against Cabinico. But it is equally clear that the law never intended the possession of the drug should be limited to mere manual touch or personal custody. Upon such holding, a guilty principal could often escape by taking the precaution to never have the drug in his actual possession, and thus defeat the intent of the law. The words “having possession of” must therefore be extended to include constructive possession; that is, the relation between the owner of the drug and the drug itself when the owner is not in actual physical possession, but when it is still under his control and management and subject to his disposition. It is immaterial whether Lee See or Chan Guy Juan was the real owner of the opium found in the sack of sugar. The evidence shows both were guilty principals in the effort to land the opium from the steamer.

Cabinico was the innocent agent of the Defendant in this case, and the responsibility for carrying the opium ashore therefore reverts to this Defendant. (Art. 13, No. 2, Penal Code; 12 Cyc., 185, and cases cited; Bishop’s New Criminal Law, vol. 1, sec. 651.)

The judgment of the lower court is therefore affirmed, with the costs of this instance against the Appellant.

Arellano, C.J., Mapa, Johnson, and Carson, JJ., concur.




Back to Home | Back to Main




















chanrobles.com





ChanRobles On-Line Bar Review

ChanRobles Internet Bar Review : www.chanroblesbar.com

ChanRobles MCLE On-line

ChanRobles Lawnet Inc. - ChanRobles MCLE On-line : www.chanroblesmcleonline.com






August-1912 Jurisprudence                 

  • [G.R. No. 7311. August 5, 1912.] THE UNITED STATES, Plaintiff-Appellee, vs. NALUA and KADAYUM, Defendants-Appellants.

  • [G.R. No. 7313. August 9, 1912.] PRUDENCIO DE JESUS, Plaintiff-Appellant, vs. LA SOCIEDAD ARRENDATARIA DE GALLERAS DE PASAY ET AL., Defendants-Appellants.

  • [G.R. No. 7443. August 12, 1912.] THE UNITED STATES, Plaintiff-Appellee, vs. MACARIO DOMINGO ET AL., Defendants. CELESTINO RAMIREZ and REGINA DOMINGO, Appellants.

  • [G.R. No. 6784. August 15, 1912.] THE UNITED STATES, Plaintiff-Appellee, vs. VICENTA LICARTE, Defendant-Appellant.

  • [G.R. No. 6940. August 15, 1912.] THE UNITED STATES, Plaintiff-Appellee, vs. ROGACIANO R. RIMON, Defendant-Appellant.

  • [G.R. No. 7337. August 16, 1912.] THE UNITED STATES, Plaintiff-Appellee, vs. LEONARDO BANDOC, Defendant-Appellant

  • [G.R. No. 7454. August 16, 1912.] PLACIDO LOZANO, Plaintiff-Appellant, vs. IGNACIO ALVARADO TAN SUICO, Defendant-Appellee.

  • [G.R. No. 7459. August 16, 1912.] THE UNITED STATES, Plaintiff-Appellee, vs. JOSE FIGUEROA, Defendant-Appellant.

  • [G.R. No. 7123. August 17, 1912.] THE UNITED STATES, Plaintiff-Appellee, vs. ROSALINO RODRIGUEZ, Defendant-Appellant.

  • [G.R. No. 7194. August 17, 1912.] THE UNITED STATES, Plaintiff-Appellee, vs. CRISPIN PERALTA, Defendant-Appellant.

  • [G.R. No. 6984. August 19, 1912.] THE UNITED STATES, Plaintiff-Appellee, vs. GENOVEVA DESTRITO and GREGORIO DE OCAMPO, Defendants-Appellants.

  • [G.R. No. 7015. August 19, 1912.] THE UNITED STATES, Plaintiff-Appellee, vs. JOSE BENGSON, Defendant-Appellant.

  • [G.R. No. 7260. August 21, 1912.] THE UNITED STATES, Plaintiff-Appellee, vs. EMILIO SANTOS REYES ET AL., Defendants. EMILIO SANTOS REYES, Appellant.

  • [G.R. No. 7422. August 22, 1912.] THE UNITED STATES, Plaintiff-Appellee, vs. TELESFORO FRIAS, Defendant-Appellant.

  • [G.R. No. 7284. August 23, 1912.] THE UNITED STATES, Plaintiff-Appellee, vs. JOSE BATALLONES ET AL., Defendants-Appellants.

  • [G.R. No. 6610. August 24, 1912.] ELEUTERIA VILLANUEVA ET AL., Plaintiffs-Appellees, vs. VALERIANO CLAUSTRO, Defendant-Appellant.

  • [G.R. No. 6999. August 24, 1912.] THE UNITED STATES, Plaintiff-Appellee, vs. CIRILO MARTIN, Defendant-Appellant.

  • [G.R. No. 7226. August 24, 1912.] HE UNITED STATES, Plaintiff-Appellee, vs. LIO TEAM, Defendant-Appellant.

  • [G.R. No. 6968. August 27, 1912.] THE UNITED STATES, Plaintiff-Appellee, vs. BASILIO CASTRO ET AL., Defendants-Appellants.

  • [G.R. No. 7953. August 28, 1912.] CHAN-SUANGCO, Petitioner, vs. CHARLES S. LOBIGIER, Judge, ET AL., Respondents.

  • [G.R. No. 6942. August 30, 1912.] THE UNITED STATES, Plaintiff-Appellee, vs. GIL GAMAO ET AL., Defendants-Appellants.

  • [G.R. No. 6992. August 30, 1912.] THE UNITED STATES, Plaintiff-Appellee, vs. AGUSTIN JUEVES ET AL., Defendants-Appellants.

  • [G.R. No. 6612. August 31, 1912.] THE UNITED STATES, Plaintiff-Appellee, vs. CHAN GUY JUAN (alias Chino Aua), Defendant-Appellant.

  • [G.R. No. 6866. August 31, 1912.] AMADA and CARMEN MESTRES Y YANGCO, Petitioners-Appellees, vs. THE DIRECTOR OF LANDS, Opponent-Appellant.

  • [G.R. No. 7225. August 31, 1912.] THE UNITED STATES, Plaintiff-Appellee, vs. MANUEL ZABALA, Defendant-Appellant.

  • G.R. No. 7311 August 5, 1912 - UNITED STATES v. NALUA, ET AL

    023 Phil 1

  • G.R. No. 7443 August 12, 1912 - UNITED STATES v. MACARIO DOMINGO, ET AL.

    023 Phil 5

  • G.R. No. 6784 August 15, 1912 - UNITED STATES v. VICENTA LICARTE

    023 Phil 10

  • G.R. No. 6940 August 15, 1912 - UNITED STATES v. ROGACIANO R. RIMON

    023 Phil 13

  • G.R. No. 7337 August 16, 1912 - UNITED STATES v. LEONARDO BANDOC

    023 Phil 14

  • G.R. No. 7454 August 16, 1912 - PLACIDO LOZANO v. IGNACIO ALVARADO TAN SUICO

    023 Phil 16

  • G.R. No. 7459 August 16, 1912 - UNITED STATES v. JOSE FIGUEROA

    023 Phil 19

  • G.R. No. 7123 August 17, 1912 - UNITED STATES v. ROSALINO RODRIGUEZ

    023 Phil 22

  • G.R. No. 7194 August 17, 1912 - UNITED STATES v. CRISPIN PERALTA

    023 Phil 26

  • G.R. No. 6984 August 19, 1912 - UNITED STATES v. GENOVEVA DESTRITO, ET AL

    023 Phil 28

  • G.R. No. 7015 August 19, 1912 - UNITED STATES v. JOSE BENGSON

    023 Phil 34

  • G.R. No. 7260 August 21, 1912 - UNITED STATES v. EMILIO SANTOS REYES, ET AL

    023 Phil 39

  • G.R. No. 7422 August 22, 1912 - UNITED STATES v. TELESFORO FRIAS

    023 Phil 43

  • G.R. No. 7284 August 23, 1912 - UNITED STATES v. JOSE BATALLONES, ET AL

    023 Phil 46

  • G.R. No. 6610 August 24, 1912 - ELEUTERIA VILLANUEVA, ET AL. v. VALERIANO CLAUSTRO

    023 Phil 54

  • G.R. No. 6999 August 24, 1912 - UNITED STATES v. CIRILO MARTIN

    023 Phil 58

  • G.R. No. 7226 August 24, 1912 - UNITED STATES v. LIO TEAM

    023 Phil 64

  • G.R. No. 6968 August 27, 1912 - UNITED STATES v. BASILIO CASTRO, ET AL.

    023 Phil 67

  • G.R. No. 7953 August 28, 1912 - CHAN-SUANGCO v. CHARLES S. LOBIGIER

    023 Phil 71

  • G.R. No. 7313 August 9, 1912 - PRUDENCIO DE JESUS v. LA SOCIEDAD ARRENDATARIA DE GALLERAS DE PASAY, ET AL.

    023 Phil 76

  • G.R. No. 6942 August 30, 1912 - UNITED STATES v. GIL GAMAO, ET AL

    023 Phil 81

  • G.R. No. 6992 August 30, 1912 - UNITED STATES v. AGUSTIN JUEVES, ET AL.

    023 Phil 100

  • G.R. No. 6612 August 31, 1912 - UNITED STATES v. CHAN GUY JUAN

    023 Phil 105

  • G.R. No. 6866 August 31, 1912 - AMADA, v. DIRECTOR OF LANDS

    023 Phil 108

  • G.R. No. 7225 August 31, 1912 - UNITED STATES v. MANUEL ZABALA

    023 Phil 117