ChanRobles™ Virtual Law Library | chanrobles.com™  
Main Index Law Library Philippine Laws, Statutes & Codes Latest Legal Updates Philippine Legal Resources Significant Philippine Legal Resources Worldwide Legal Resources Philippine Supreme Court Decisions United States Jurisprudence
Prof. Joselito Guianan Chan's The Labor Code of the Philippines, Annotated Labor Standards & Social Legislation Volume I of a 3-Volume Series 2019 Edition (3rd Revised Edition)
 

 
Chan Robles Virtual Law Library
 









 

 
UNITED STATES SUPREME COURT JURISPRUDENCE
 

 
PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT JURISPRUDENCE
 

   
August-1916 Jurisprudence                 

  • G.R. No. 9366 August 1, 1916 - YAP TICO & CO. v. H. C. ANDERSON

    034 Phil 626

  • G.R. No. 10010 August 1, 1916 - CHU JAN v. LUCIO BERNAS

    034 Phil 631

  • G.R. No. 11371 August 1, 1916 - UNITED STATES v. CECILIA MEMORACION

    034 Phil 633

  • G.R. No. 11497 August 1, 1916 - UNITED STATES v. LORENZO BLANZA

    034 Phil 639

  • G.R. No. 11597 August 1, 1916 - UNITED STATES v. DARIO PADILLA

    034 Phil 641

  • G.R. No. 11634 August 1, 1916 - UNITED STATES v. BARAMBANGAN

    034 Phil 645

  • G.R. No. 8452 August 2, 1916 - DEAN C.WORCESTER v. MARTIN OCAMPO

    034 Phil 646

  • G.R. No. 11389 August 2, 1916 - UNITED STATES v. JUAN SELLANO

    034 Phil 655

  • G.R. No. 11425 August 2, 1916 - UNITED STATES v. NGAN PING

    034 Phil 660

  • G.R. Nos. 10114 & 10137 August 3, 1916 - MELECIO MONTINOLA v. JOSE G. MONTALVO ET AL.

    034 Phil 662

  • G.R. No. 11050 August 7, 1916 - UNITED STATES v. LIM SOON

    034 Phil 668

  • G.R. No. 11159 August 7, 1916 - UNITED STATES v. MANUEL B. ASENSI

    034 Phil 671

  • G.R. No. 11420 August 7, 1916 - UNITED STATES v. WAN YANG

    034 Phil 679

  • G.R. No. 9957 August 8, 1916 - PERFECTO DE LA VEGA ET AL. v. TOMAS BALLILOS (or BALIELOS)

    034 Phil 683

  • G.R. No. 11477 August 8, 1916 - UNITED STATES v. TORIBIIO ANDAYA

    034 Phil 690

  • G.R. No. 11507 August 8, 1916 - UNITED STATES v. SEVERO DE LOS REYES

    034 Phil 693

  • G.R. No. 11510 August 8, 1916 - UNITED STATES v. BAHATAN

    034 Phil 695

  • G.R. No. 10712 August 10, 1916 - ANSELMO FERRAZZINI v. CARLOS GSELL

    034 Phil 697

  • G.R. No. 11566 August 10, 1916 - UNITED STATES v. MARCELO JOSE

    034 Phil 715

  • G.R. No. 11565 August 11, 1916 - UNITED STATES v. MARCELO JOSE

    034 Phil 723

  • G.R. No. 11162 August 12, 1916 - UNITED STATES v. F. LULING

    034 Phil 725

  • G.R. No. 11530 August 12, 1916 - UNITED STATES v. JUAN PONS

    034 Phil 729

  • G.R. No. 10100 August 15, 1916 - GALO ABRENICA v. MANUEL GONDA

    034 Phil 739

  • G.R. No. 11165 August 15, 1916 - UNITED STATES v. MANUEL B. ASENSI

    034 Phil 750

  • G.R. No. 11338 August 15, 1916 - UNITED STATES v. TAN OCO

    034 Phil 772

  • G.R. No. 11480 August 17, 1916 - UNITED STATES v. ROBERTO PANGILION

    034 Phil 786

  • G.R. No. 10374 August 18, 1916 - PIO MERCADO v. MARIA TAN-LINGCO

    034 Phil 793

  • G.R. No. 10891 August 18, 1916 - UNITED STATES v. EUGENIO KILAYKO

    034 Phil 796

  • G.R. No. 11711 August 18, 1916 - MANUEL CEMBRANO CHAN GUANCO v. INSULAR COLLECTOR OF CUSTOMS

    034 Phil 802

  • G.R. No. 10988 August 19, 1916 - ROQUE SAMSON v. BRAULIO GARCIA

    034 Phil 805

  • G.R. No. 11488 August 19, 1916 - UNITED STATES v. LICERIO CASTEN

    034 Phil 808

  • G.R. No. 11653 August 19, 1916 - UNITED STATES v. GENOVEVA AQUINO

    034 Phil 813

  • G.R. No. 12096 August 22, 1916 - EMILIO DE CASTRO v. FERNANDO SALAS

    034 Phil 818

  • G.R. No. 11401 August 23, 1916 - UNITED STATES v. GREGORIO CRISTOBAL ET AL.

    034 Phil 825

  • G.R. No. 11427 August 23, 1916 - VY LIONG LIN v. INSULAR COLLECTOR OF CUSTOMS

    034 Phil 832

  • G.R. No. 11505 August 25, 1916 - UNITED STATES v. SATAOA BUNGAOIL

    034 Phil 835

  • G.R. No. 11737 August 25, 1916 - UNITED STATES v. MARCELO JOSE ET AL.

    034 Phil 840

  • G.R. No. 11739 August 25, 1916 - CESAR MERCADER v. ADOLPH WISLIZENUS

    034 Phil 846

  • G.R. No. 11986 August 25, 1916 - MANUEL ORIA Y GONZALEZ v. RICHARD CAMPBELL

    034 Phil 850

  • G.R. No. 11071 August 26, 1916 - S. CHASE DE KRAFFT v. APOLINAR VELEZ

    034 Phil 854

  • G.R. No. 10868 August 28, 1916 - LEOCADIO JOAQUIN v. O. MITSUMINE

    034 Phil 858

  • G.R. No. 11267 August 31, 1916 - SEE CHIAT SEE HUAN v. INSULAR COLLECTOR OF CUSTOMS

    034 Phil 865

  • G.R. No. 11562 August 31, 1916 - UNITED STATES v. SIMON LAZARO

    034 Phil 871

  • G.R. No. 11772 August 31, 1916 - UNITED STATES v. GAN LIAN PO

    034 Phil 880

  •  





     
     

    G.R. No. 11565  August 11, 1916 - UNITED STATES v. MARCELO JOSE<br /><br />034 Phil 723

     
    PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT DECISIONS

    SECOND DIVISION

    [G.R. No. 11565. August 11, 1916. ]

    THE UNITED STATES, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. MARCELO JOSE and TAN BO, Defendants. MARCELO JOSE, Appellant.

    Delgado & Delgado for Appellant.

    Attorney-General Avanceña for Appellee.

    SYLLABUS


    1. ILLEGAL POSSESSION OF FIREARMS; ANIMUS POSSIDENDI; PROOF OF POSSESSION OR INTENT TO POSSESS. — When a revolver or other firearm is found upon the premises occupied by a person accused of possessing the same, there can be no conviction under Act No. 1780, unless it affirmatively appears that he knowingly had such firearm on the premises or that the animus possidendi in fact existed, together with his alleged apparent possession or control. The existence of these essential elements may, however, be inferred from the varying circumstances in each particular case.

    2. ID.; ID.; ID. — Under the facts stated in the opinion, the appellant was not guilty of knowingly permitting the revolver in question to be upon his premises.


    D E C I S I O N


    TRENT, J. :


    Marcelo Jose and Tan Bo were each sentenced to pay a fine of P50, to suffer then corresponding subsidiary imprisonment in case of insolvency, and to pay one-half of the costs of the cause for a violation of Act No. 1780. Marcelo Jose alone appealed.

    It is now urged that the trial court erred (a) in denying the appellant’s motion for a continuance until the arrival of his counsel and (b) in finding that the testimony of record establishes the guilt of the appellant of the crime charged beyond a reasonable doubt.

    The Attorney-General agrees with counsel for the appellant that the first assignment of error is will founded. We will consider first the question whether the appellant is guilty under the record.

    The admitted facts are these: The commercial firm of Marcelo Jose & Co., composed of this appellant and the Chinaman Tan Bo, was doing business at No. 200 Calle Harris in the town of Olongapo. Both Jose and Tan Bo were arrested and placed in jail on the night of May 16, 1915, and on the following day their store was searched by the authorities and a revolver was found in the main part of the store behind some bolts of cloth. No one connected with the store had a license for this revolver. Sergeant Morill of the Marine Corps, who found the revolver at the above mentioned place, on being asked this question, "How many storekeepers, Chinamen, or people do you usually see in the store of Tan Bo and Marcelo Jose?," replied," Sometimes two, more times four or five." The appellant, Marcelo Jose, while not denying that he is a part owner of the mercantile establishment at No. 200 Calle Harris, Olongapo, where the revolver was found, testified that he is a merchant and lives in Manila, and that the first time that he ever saw the revolver was in the court of the justice of the peace in Olongapo sometime after it had been found.

    Section 1 of Act No. 1780 provides that it shall be unlawful for any person, firm or corporation to possess or have the custody of any revolver without first securing a license therefor. The revolver in question in the instant case was found, as we have said, in the appellant’s store and the question arises whether he had possession or custody of it within the meaning of the Act. This court has held that the animus possidendi must be proved in opium cases where the prohibited drug was found on the premises of the accused and the same rule is applicable to the possession of firearms. The appellant denied all knowledge of the existence of the revolver, and the Government’s principal witness stated that there were a number of employees in the store. The only testimony which tends to show that the appellant had the possession or custody of this revolver is the inference drawn from the fact that it was found in his store, but we think that this inference is overcome by the positive testimony of the appellant, when considered with the fact that there were a number of employees in the store, who, of course, could have placed the revolver in the secret place where it was found without the knowledge of the Appellant. At least, there is a very serious doubt whether he knew of the existence of this revolver. In such cases the doubt must be resolved in favor of the Appellant.

    For the foregoing reasons, the judgment appealed from is reversed and the appellant acquitted, with costs de officio. So ordered.

    Torres, Johnson, and Araullo, JJ., concur.

    Separate Opinions


    MORELAND, J., concurring and dissenting:chanrob1es virtual 1aw library

    (See concurring and dissenting opinion in case No. 11566, page 717, ante.)

    G.R. No. 11565  August 11, 1916 - UNITED STATES v. MARCELO JOSE<br /><br />034 Phil 723


    Back to Home | Back to Main

     

    QUICK SEARCH

    cralaw

       

    cralaw



     
      Copyright © ChanRobles Publishing Company Disclaimer | E-mail Restrictions
    ChanRobles™ Virtual Law Library | chanrobles.com™
     
    RED