United States vs.

Teresa Concepcion
Gr No. 10396 July 29, 1915

Facts:

Herein defendant was charged with a violation of Opium Law.

On December 2, 1913, several policemen went to the house of the defendant where she was
living with her husband. While the policemen were searching the house, the husband of the
defendant ordered the latter to take the can of opium on the bed and throw it. The
policemen were able to take possession of the can. The policemen at that moment evidently
believed that the opium belonged to the husband and they arrested him. It was until more
than 10 months that a complaint was presented against the present defendant. The trial
court found her guilty for the crime charged.

Issues:

Whether or not defendant’s conviction was proved beyond reasonable doubt.

Whether or not the lower court erred in admitting the testimony of her husband without her
consent.

Ruling:

The fact that the defendant took possession of the opium under the pillow as ordered by her
husband cannot be used as basis for her conviction, and is not such a possession of opium as
is intended to be condemned by law. The very act thereof was not denied by the defendant.
She certainly did not intend, even remotely, to have in her possession the opium. She did
exactly what any other faithful wife would have done under similar circumstances. There is
no proof that she used the opium nor she knew the can contained opium. Consequently,
there is no proof of animus possidendi.

As to the second issue, the defendant based her contention on the rule that prohibits a
husband from giving testimony against his wife without her consent, except in civil action
between husband and wife, and in criminal action where the crime was committed by one
against the other. Therefore, the testimony of the husband is not admissible if the wife
objected.

Further, the testimony given by her husband was not in the present case. It was given in
another case where he was the defendant and in which he was charged with the illegal
possession of the opium in question. During the trial, he testified in his own behalf. It was
the testimony given in that case which was presented as proof in the present case. Hence,
his testimony is not admissible.