Home of ChanRobles Virtual Law Library

 

Home of Chan Robles Virtual Law Library

www.chanrobles.com

PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT DECISIONS

EN BANC

[G.R. No. 10492. August 12, 1915. ]

THE UNITED STATES, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. YAO SIM, Defendant-Appellant.

Ramon Diokno for Appellant.

Acting Attorney-General Zaragoza for Appellee.

SYLLABUS


1. OPIUM; UNLAWFUL POSSESSION; BURDEN OF PROOF. — Adhering to the doctrine laid down in United States v. Chan Toco (12 Phil. Rep., 262), Held: That, under an information charging the unlawful possession of opium the burden of proof rests upon the accused, after the prosecution has established, the fact of possession by competent testimony, to show that he was lawfully entitled to have the drug in his possession for use as a medicine upon the prescription of a practicing physician, if he desires to set up an allegation to that effect by way of defense.


D E C I S I O N


CARSON, J.:


There is and can be no question as to the fact that the accused in this case was found with some 8 grams of opium in his possession. It is claimed by counsel on appeal that the conviction of the accused by the trial court should not be sustained, because the prosecution failed to negative by affirmative evidence that the accused was lawfully entitled to have this opium in his possession for use as a medicine upon the prescription of a practicing physician.

No evidence was offered by the accused in the court below in support of a claim that the accused was lawfully entitled to have the contraband drug in his possession, and the prosecution having established the fact of possession by competent testimony, the trial court properly held such possession to have been illegal, in the absence of any evidence tending to show that the accused was lawfully entitled to have the drug in his possession for use as a medicine upon a prescription of a practicing physician. (U. S. v. Chan Toco, 12 Phil. Rep., 262.)

We find no error in the proceedings prejudicial to the substantial rights of the accused. The judgment convicting and sentencing him should therefore be affirmed, with the costs of this instance against him. So ordered.

Arellano, C.J., Torres, Johnson, Trent and Araullo, JJ., concur.

Top of Page