G.R. No. L-6612, August 31, 1912
THE UNITED STATES, plaintiff-appellee, vs. CHAN GUY JUAN (alias Chino Aua), defendant-appellant.

FACTS

On May 26, 1910, the steamer Ton-Yek anchored in Calbayog, Samar. A passenger, Lee See, disembarked and had a lengthy conversation with the appellant, Chan Guy Juan. Lee See then returned to the steamer. The appellant employed Isidro Cabinico to take a boat (baroto) to the steamer to receive a sack of “sugar” from Lee See. Lee See lowered a sack into Cabinico’s boat. While Cabinico was on his way to deliver the sack to the appellant, he was arrested. The sack was found to contain a small amount of sugar and twenty-eight cans of opium. Cabinico was unaware of the sack’s true contents. Separate criminal charges were filed against Lee See, Chan Guy Juan, and Cabinico. The charge against Cabinico was dismissed, while Lee See and Chan Guy Juan were convicted. Lee See’s conviction was previously affirmed by the Supreme Court.

ISSUE

Whether the appellant, Chan Guy Juan, who never had actual physical possession of the opium, can be held guilty of “having possession of” opium under Section 31 of Act No. 1761 (the Opium Law).

RULING

Yes. The Supreme Court affirmed the conviction. The term “having possession of” in the Opium Law is not limited to actual physical possession. It includes constructive possession. The Court held that a person cannot escape liability by using an innocent agent to handle the contraband. Here, Cabinico was an innocent agent, having no knowledge that the sack contained opium. The appellant, who employed Cabinico and knew the sack contained opium, had control and management over the drug and was therefore in constructive possession of it. The responsibility for the act of carrying the opium ashore reverts to the appellant as the principal. The judgment of the lower court was affirmed.