G.R. No. L-5482
THE UNITED STATES, plaintiff-appellee, vs. LIM CHINGCO, defendant-appellant.
January 15, 1910

FACTS:
Lim Chingco and Go Chingco were charged with a violation of the Opium Law (illegal possession of opium and an opium-pipe cleaning instrument) after a revenue agent found the items in Lim Chingco’s store.

In the Court of First Instance:
1. Go Chingco pleaded guilty, was convicted, and did not appeal.
2. Lim Chingco pleaded not guilty but was convicted and sentenced to pay a fine of P200. He appealed the conviction.

During the preliminary investigation before the justice of the peace, Lim Chingco stated he was “guilty” because the items were found in his store, but clarified they belonged to his employee, Go Chingco. Go Chingco was then included in the complaint and admitted that the opium and pipe cleaner were his exclusive property.

At the trial, prosecution witnesses confirmed Lim Chingco’s qualified statement, emphasizing he admitted the items were found in his store but not that they were his. Both Lim Chingco and Go Chingco testified for the defense, reiterating that the items were Go Chingco’s exclusive property and Lim Chingco only became aware they were Go Chingco’s after their discovery and Go Chingco’s admission of ownership. Lim Chingco maintained he had no prior knowledge of his employee possessing these articles.

ISSUE:
Whether the appellant, Lim Chingco, was proven guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the illegal possession of opium and an opium pipe cleaner, given that the items were found in his store but were proven to be the exclusive property and in the exclusive possession of his employee, and that he lacked prior knowledge of their presence.

RULING:
The Supreme Court reversed the judgment of conviction and acquitted Lim Chingco.

The Court held that the evidence of record did not sustain a finding beyond a reasonable doubt that Lim Chingco was in possession of the opium and pipe cleaner. While the discovery of the items in his store raised a prima facie presumption of possession, this presumption was conclusively rebutted by uncontradicted evidence.

Referring to the definition of “possession” from United States vs. Tan Tayco and Co Sencho, the Court reiterated that possession involves “a state of mind on the part of the possessor whereby he intends to exercise and, as a consequence of which, he does exercise a right of possession” (animus possidendi). The existence of this intent is subject to contradiction.

In this case, the evidence overwhelmingly established that the seized articles were the exclusive property and in the exclusive possession of Go Chingco. Crucially, Lim Chingco had no knowledge of his employee, Go Chingco, having these articles in his possession or control prior to their seizure. Lim Chingco’s “guilty” statement in the justice of the peace court was merely an admission that the items were found in his store, not an admission of criminal possession or ownership.

Therefore, without the requisite animus possidendi (intent to possess), Lim Chingco could not be held guilty of illegal possession. The prosecution failed to prove this essential element of the crime beyond a reasonable doubt.