G.R. No. L-10731; January 20, 1916
THE UNITED STATES, plaintiff-appellee, vs. LORENZO LOPEZ QUIM QUINCO, defendant-appellant.

FACTS:
On or about September 20, 1914, in Ligao, Albay, an Internal Revenue Inspector went to the tienda of the accused, Lorenzo Lopez Quim Quinco, to examine his books. Upon arrival, the inspector smelled opium. Proceeding to the accused’s bedroom, he discovered a small bottle of opium, an opium pipe, and other paraphernalia for smoking opium. The accused was arrested and brought before the justice of the peace the following day. After the complaint was read to him, he voluntarily pleaded guilty. The justice of the peace found probable cause and remanded the case to the Court of First Instance. In the Court of First Instance, the accused was charged with a violation of the Opium Law (Act No. 2381) for illegally possessing opium and related paraphernalia. He pleaded not guilty. During trial, the prosecution presented the inspector’s testimony and the record of the preliminary investigation (Exhibit A), which contained the accused’s initial guilty plea. The accused admitted making the confession but claimed he was forced to do so by the inspector. He also presented witnesses to support his defense that the opium and pipe had been left in his room by another Chinese individual nearly two years prior and that he was unaware of their presence. The trial court found the accused guilty, sentencing him to three months imprisonment and a fine of P300, with subsidiary imprisonment in case of insolvency. The accused appealed.

ISSUE:
Whether the trial court erred in convicting the accused based on the evidence presented.

RULING:
The Supreme Court affirmed the conviction. The Court held that:
1. The record of the preliminary investigation (Exhibit A) was properly admitted in evidence for the purpose of testing the credibility of witnesses. The trial court correctly found that the accused’s initial guilty plea was made voluntarily, rejecting his claim of intimidation.
2. The defense’s theory that the opium had been left by another person two years earlier was not credible. The Court found it unlikely that opium stored in a closed box for that duration would emit a detectable odor, which was what initially alerted the inspector who was not specifically searching for opium.
3. The testimony of a single witness for the prosecution is sufficient to sustain a conviction if it satisfies the court beyond a reasonable doubt. The inspector’s testimony, corroborated by the physical evidence and the accused’s initial confession, met this standard.
The evidence established the accused’s guilt beyond a reasonable doubt for violating the Opium Law. The decision of the lower court was affirmed.