Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence


Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence > Year 1913 > December 1913 Decisions > G.R. No. 9041 December 22, 1913 - UNITED STATES v. LIN TIAO

026 Phil 331:




PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT DECISIONS

FIRST DIVISION

[G.R. No. 9041. December 22, 1913. ]

THE UNITED STATES, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. LIN TIAO, Defendant-Appellant.

Hartford Beaumont,, for Appellant.

Solicitor General Harvey, for Appellee.

SYLLABUS


1. OPIUM LAW; POSSESSION OF SMALL QUANTITY OF OPIUM; ABSENCE OF "ANIMUS POSSEDENI." — Although it has been held that it matters not how small the quantity of opium found in the unauthorized possession of an accused person may be, he is guilty of a violation of the statute if he knowingly had it in his possession; nevertheless it may well happen, as in the case at bar, that, under all the circumstances of a particular case, the fact that the amount of opium found in the possession of an accused person is very small will be sufficient, when taken together with his denial of knowledge of the fact that he had it in his possession, to sustain a finding that the animus possidendi was absent.


D E C I S I O N


CARSON, J. :


The defendant and appellant in this case was convicted in the court below of violation of the Opium Law and sentenced to the payment of a fine P300 and the costs of the trial.

The information charges: "That on or about the 19th day of April, 1913, in the city of Manila, P. I., the said accused did then and there willfully, unlawfully, and feloniously have in his possession and under his control one-half gram of opium; contrary to law."cralaw virtua1aw library

It appears that defendant’s premises were searched by police officers on the 19th day of April, 1913, and that as a result of the search eight small tins and a match box containing in all about one-half a gram of opium were found in the attic, rolled up in a petate, and secreted upon some boards laid loosely across the rafters. It is not quite clear form the evidence how much of the drug was found in the different receptacles, but it does appear that a little was found in each of the seven tins and also in the match box, and it is very evident that the amount found in any one of them must have been very small indeed. Indeed it is very doubtful whether any greater amount of opium was found in any one of the receptacles than one might expect to find sticking to the sides and bottom of a carelessly emptied can or box containing the drug.

The defendant testified that the tins and the box did not belong to him and that he did not know that they contained opium; that they had been left in the attic by a Chinaman named Lee Uy. who formerly lived in the house, but who had gone to China some two months prior to the search; that he had been absent in the provinces for about ten months before Lee Uy left for China; and that during that time Lee Uy occupied the premises and had charge of his tienda. His testimony stands uncontradicted, and is in some respects corroborated by the testimony of one of the police officers who said that the place where the tins were found was covered with dust, and apparently unused and neglected.

We are of opinion that the evidence introduced at the trial is not sufficient to sustain a conviction. It is true that the statute penalizes the unauthorized possession of opium on one’s person or on one’s premises, and that we have held that it matters not how small the quantity of the contraband drug may be, if one knowingly has it in his possession or control he is guilty of a violation of the statute (U.S. v. Lim Poco, 25 Phil. Rep., 84). But in that case well as in the cases of the United States v. Tan Tayco (12 Phil. Rep., 739), and the United States v. Tin Masa (17 Phil. Rep., 463), we held that in no case could a conviction of unlawful possession of opium be sustained where it appeals that the animus possidendi is absent, or that the defendant was not aware that the prohibited drug was in his possession or on his premises and under his control. And it may well happen that the fact that the amount of opium found in the possession of an accused person is very small will be sufficient, under all the circumstances of a particular case, when taken together with his denial of knowledge of the fact that he had it in his possession, to sustain a finding that the animus possidendi is absent. We are opinion, and so hold, that in the case at bar, the insignificant amount of the drug which was found in the receptacles left in defendant’s attic by a former occupant of the house, taken together with defendant’s denials of knowledge that opium would be found in these apparently empty receptacles, is sufficient under all the circumstances of this case to justify and require a holding that animus possidendi was absent, and that the defendant is only not guilty of the offense with which he is charged.

The judgment of the lower court convicting and sentencing the defendant and appellant should therefore be reversed and he should be acquitted of the offense with which he is charged in the information, with the costs in both instances de oficio. So ordered.

Arellano, C.J., Torres, Moreland, and Trent, JJ., concur.




Back to Home | Back to Main


chanrobles.com



ChanRobles Professional Review, Inc.

ChanRobles Professional Review, Inc. : www.chanroblesprofessionalreview.com
ChanRobles On-Line Bar Review

ChanRobles Internet Bar Review : www.chanroblesbar.com
ChanRobles CPA Review Online

ChanRobles CPALE Review Online : www.chanroblescpareviewonline.com
ChanRobles Special Lecture Series

ChanRobles Special Lecture Series - Memory Man : www.chanroblesbar.com/memoryman





December-1913 Jurisprudence                 

  • G.R. No. 8238 December 2, 1913 - ANTONIO M. BARRETTO v. JOSE SANTA MARINA

    026 Phil 200

  • G.R. No. 8561 December 4, 1913 - UNITED STATES v. E. M. KNIGHT

    026 Phil 216

  • G.R. No. 8658 December 4, 1913 - MANUEL RUPERTO, ET AL. v. MANUEL KOSCA, ET AL.

    026 Phil 227

  • G.R. No. 8860 December 4, 1913 - UNITED STATES v. ERIBERTO M. PASCUAL

    026 Phil 234

  • G.R. No. 8969 December 4, 1913 - UNITED STATES v. PAULINO LABADAN

    026 Phil 239

  • G.R. No. 6650 December 5, 1913 - SANTIAGO GALVEZ v. CANUTA GALVEZ

    026 Phil 243

  • G.R. No. 7888 December 6, 1913 - DIONISIO CABUNIAG v. MARCOS MAGUNDAYAO

    026 Phil 248

  • G.R. No. 8126 December 11, 1913 - TAN BEKO v. INSULAR COLLECTOR OF CUSTOMS

    026 Phil 254

  • G.R. No. 8973 December 11, 1913 - UNITED STATES v. LINO RAMOS CALUBAQUIB

    026 Phil 257

  • G.R. No. 9014 December 11, 1913 - UNITED STATES v. CORNELIO FLORES

    026 Phil 262

  • G.R. No. 8120 December 12, 1913 - FERMIN DE LA CRUZ v. INSULAR COLLECTOR OF CUSTOMS

    026 Phil 270

  • G.R. No. 8991 December 12, 1913 - CONSTANCIO JOAQUIN v. ALBERTO BARRETTO, ET AL.

    026 Phil 272

  • G.R. No. 9022 December 13, 1913 - UNITED STATES v. ANDRES HERRERA

    026 Phil 276

  • G.R. No. 8105 December 17, 1913 - ANGEL ORTIZ, ET AL. v. ANGEL ORTIZ

    026 Phil 280

  • G.R. No. 9109 December 17, 1913 - UNITED STATES v. LEONILO GARCIA, ET AL.

    026 Phil 289

  • G.R. No. 7999 December 19, 1913 - ROMAN CATHOLIC BISHOP OF NUEVA SEGOVIA v. GOV’T. OF THE PHIL. ISLANDS, ET AL.

    026 Phil 300

  • G.R. No. 8946 December 20, 1913 - UNITED STATES v. AH TUNG, ET AL.

    026 Phil 321

  • G.R. No. 7785 December 22, 1913 - FELIPE JUAN, ET AL. v. GO COTAY, ET AL.

    026 Phil 328

  • G.R. No. 9041 December 22, 1913 - UNITED STATES v. LIN TIAO

    026 Phil 331

  • G.R. No. 7856 December 26, 1913 - IN RE: MARIA CRISTINA G. CALDERON v. LUCAS EUGENIO, ET AL.

    026 Phil 333

  • G.R. No. 7928 December 27, 1913 - PROV. OF TARLAC, ET AL. v. HERBERT D. GALE

    026 Phil 338

  • G.R. No. 8214 December 27, 1913 - UNITED STATES v. THOMAS R. NICHOL

    026 Phil 373

  • G.R. No. 8267 December 27, 1913 - UNITED STATES v. APOLINARIO CUNANAN

    026 Phil 376

  • G.R. No. 8376 December 27, 1913 - MANUEL NOVO & CO. v. J. E. AINSWORTH

    026 Phil 380

  • G.R. No. 8394 December 27, 1913 - JOSE VACA v. MANUEL KOSCA

    026 Phil 388

  • G.R. No. 8574 December 27, 1913 - VICTORIANO SANTOS, ET AL. v. ELIAS ESTEJADA, ET AL.

    026 Phil 398

  • G.R. No. 8638 December 27, 1913 - PEDRO DEL ROSARIO v. TOMAS CELOSIA, ET AT.

    026 Phil 404

  • G.R. No. 7487 December 29, 1913 - CONSTANZA YAÑEZ DE BARNUEVO v. GABRIEL FUSTER

    029 Phil 606

  • G.R. No. 7895 December 29, 1913 - VICTORINO DEL CASTILLO v. PABLO ESCARELLA

    026 Phil 409

  • G.R. No. 8021 December 29, 1913 - PROCESA PELAEZ v. FLAVIANO ABREU

    026 Phil 415

  • G.R. No. 8029 December 29, 1913 - UNITED STATES v. CARROLL H. LAMB

    026 Phil 423

  • G.R. No. 8169 December 29, 1913 - ANTONIO M.A BARRETO v. JOSE SANTA MARINA

    026 Phil 440

  • G.R. No. 8654 December 29, 1913 - UNITED STATES v. TE TONG

    026 Phil 453

  • G.R. Nos. 8648 & 8649 December 29, 1913 - JOSE AGREGADO v. VICENTE MUÑOZ, ET AL.

    026 Phil 456

  • G.R. No. 8650 December 29, 1913 - HENRY M. JONES, ET AL. v. H.E. SCHIFFBAUER

    026 Phil 467

  • G.R. No. 8678 December 29, 1913 - MARCIANA MORENO DE WORRICK v. PAULINA GACO, ET AL.

    026 Phil 469

  • G.R. No. 8896 December 29, 1913 - EDUARDO GUTIERREZ REPIDE v. GUTIERREZ HERMANOS

    026 Phil 476

  • G.R. No. 9158 December 29, 1913 - RAMON HONTIVEROS v. JOSE ALTAVAS

    026 Phil 213

  • G.R. No. 9096 December 29, 1913 - UNITED STATES v. ESTEBAN Y. VAZQUEZ

    026 Phil 479

  • G.R. No. 7821 December 31, 1913 - DOMINADOR GOMEZ v. REMEDIOS SALCEDO

    026 Phil 485

  • G.R. No. 8190 December 31, 1913 - ISIDORA VENTURA v. AUREA CONSUELO FELIX, ET AL.

    026 Phil 500

  • G.R. No. 8621 December 31, 1913 - UNITED STATES v. JUAN DACIR, ET AL.

    026 Phil 503

  • G.R. No. 8756 December 31, 1913 - ELEUTERIO CAMPOMANES v. GEORGE BERBARY, ET AL.

    026 Phil 517