LIM I, PATRICIA JADE J.

BSC 3E May 20, 2022

C. Elements of Possession, No. 24. U.S. vs. Juan, 23 Phil 105

THE UNITED STATES, plaintiff-appellee,

vs.
CHAN GUY JUAN, (alias Chino Aua), defendant-appellant.

FACT

The vessel Ton-Yek was anchored in the Bay of Calbayog Samar on the morning of May 26th, 1910. One
of the passengers, a Chinese guy named Lee See (alias Tuya), disembarked and went to the appellant,
Chan Guy Juan (alias Aua), in the town of Calbayog, where the two had a lengthy talk. Lee See returned
to the boat, and the appellant hired a man named Isidro Cabinico to go alongside the boat with a baroto
and collect sugar from it. Lee See, who was on deck when the vessel arrived, hooked a rope around the
sack and lowered it into Cabinico's baroto. On his way to the appellant's house with the sack and its
contents, Cabinico was arrested, along with a little amount of sugar and twenty-eight cans of opium. The
opium was seized by local authorities, and separate criminal charges were filed against the two
Chinamen while Cabinico was dismissed. The accusations against the two Chinamen were pursued, and
both were convicted, and they are now appealing.

ISSUE

Whether or not Chan Guy Juan was guilty of crime by possessing opium even if it’s not on his custody

RULING

Yes. In section 31 of Act No. 1761, the term "having possession of" is a little confusing. It is clear that the
law never intended for drug possession to be limited to mere physical contact or personal custody. On
such an allegation, a guilty principal can sometimes get away by taking the precaution of never having
the drug in his real hands, thus defeating the law's purpose. As a result, the term "having possession of"
must be extended to cover "constructive possession," which refers to property that is still under his
control and management and subject to his disposal. The Supreme Court decided that it didn't matter
whether Lee See or Chan Guy Juan owned the opium found in the sugar sack. Both were guilty principals
in the attempt to land the opium from the vessel, as per the evidence. The responsibility for carrying the
opium ashore therefore reverts to this defendant. Wherefore, the lower court’s judgment is therefore
affirmed, with the appellant's costs assessed against him.
C. Elements of Possession, No. 25. U.S. vs. Gan Lian Po, 34 Phil 880

THE UNITED STATES, Plaintiff-Appellee,

v.

GAN LIAN PO, Defendant-Appellant.

FACT

Gan Lian Po, the appellant, owned a building at No. 317 Ilang-Ilang Street where he operated a sack
manufacturing business. Ko Seng, the defendant, was the business's superintendent and manager.

Several police officers searched the premises on February 29, 1916, and discovered a significant amount
of cocaine and morphine concealed among a pile of sacks in a certain room. The persons already
mentioned, including the appellant, were arrested and charged with illegal possession of morphine and
cocaine after preliminary investigations. Ko Seng pleaded guilty, while Gan Lian Po, the appellant,
pleaded not guilty of the crime charged but later convicted, and now appealed.

ISSUE

Whether or not the appellant had knowledge and knew that there is presence of opium in his premises

RULING

No. Sergeant Sullivan testified that the appellant told him that he knew the opium was in his premises
before the raid, and the appellant admits that he told the sergeant that he knew the opium was there
only when the officers were searching the room where the drugs were found, because his foreman, Ko
Seng, ran to his office and told him that there was morphine and cocaine in the room where the officers
were searching. The Supreme Court ruled that the sergeant's testimony lacks cogency and clarity, which
should characterize evidence in a criminal case. Due to the sergeant's inability to speak Chinese and the
appellant's ignorance of English and both Spanish languages, in which the sergeant made false
impressions and misunderstood the appellant when the latter said "Si, señor, mi sabe morphine." when
asked if he knew there was opium. The Supreme Court further believes the statement is insufficient to
support the conclusion that appellant was aware of the drugs on his property prior to the raid.
Wherefore, the judgment appealed from is reversed and the accused acquitted.
C. Elements of Possession, No. 27. Pp vs Laxa, et. al. G.R. 138501 July 20, 2001

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee,

vs.
ERNESTO LAXA Y MANLICLIC @ JANGGO, accused-appellant.

FACT

At around 1:00 p.m. on November 30, 1998, numerous police officers performed a buy-bust operation in
Villapaz, Angeles City's Barangay Pampang. Edna Ocampo and Jocelyn Aquino, accused-appellant
Ernesto M. Laxa's sister-in-law, were arrested as a result of the entrapment. In exchange for her
freedom, Jocelyn offered to name the local drug dealers, pointing out the homes of people she
suspected of having marijuana, including accused-appellant's home which is next to his lumberyard.

According to Arthur Tanjuakio of Citizens Crime Watch, the police caught the accused-appellant in the
act of throwing marijuana-filled bags over a fence. Tanjuakio claimed he saw a man walking hastily down
a narrow alley near the shanties from a distance of 20 or 30 meters, and the man was 10 or 15 meters
away from the lumberyard, carrying two large plastic bags with red and white stripes.

Tanjuakio said that he followed the man, later identified as accused-appellant, to see what he was up to.
PO2 Hersologo Trivinio and PO1 Narciso Pangilinan accompanied him. Accused-appellant was allegedly
seen throwing a plastic bag over a wire fence. PO2 Trivinio rushed to the opposite side of the fence to
verify the contents of the bags while Trivinio and Pangilinan arrested the accused-appellant. Trivinio
discovered that each of the two red and white bags had five identical bags containing marijuana-like
stuff.

ISSUE
Whether or not the appellant Ernesto Laxa is guilty beyond reasonable doubt for possessing drugs

RULING

No. The Supreme Court ruled that the prosecution likewise failed to establish the identity of the
prohibited drug which constitutes the corpus delicti which is an essential requirement in a drug-related
case. The records do not indicate whether PO2 Hersologo Trivinio or Arthur Tanjuakio promptly marked
the confiscated items after apprehending accused-appellant. Because the origin of marijuana is in
question, the accused-guilt appellant's cannot be proven beyond a reasonable doubt, therefore the
Supreme Court cannot sustain his conviction. Wherefore, the RTC’s decision is likewise reversed and the
accused-appellant Ernesto Laxa is acquitted of the crime charged.