[ G.R. No. 10498. December 24, 1915 ] 33 Phil. 53
[ G.R. No. 10498. December 24, 1915 ]
THE UNITED STATES, PLAINTIFF AND APPELLEE, VS. SY LIONGCO, DEFENDANT AND APPELLANT. D E C I S I O N
CARSON, J.:
The appellant in this case was convicted in the court below of the illegal possession of a small quantity of opium ashes on the 21st of July, 1913, and sentenced to 9 months’ imprisonment and to the payment of a fine of P300. If the testimony of the witnesses for the prosecution is worthy of credence there can be no doubt of the guilt of the accused; and a careful examination of the evidence of record discloses nothing which would justify us in disturbing the findings in this regard by the trial judge who saw and heard the witnesses testify and was satisfied beyond a reasonable doubt as to the substantial truth and accuracy of the testimony of these witnesses. In the case of the United States vs. Sua Tua (11 Off. CJaz., 43) we ruled adversely to contentions similar to those urged by counsel for appellant in this case as to the kind of proof necessary to sustain an allegation in a criminal complaint that a certain substance offered in evidence is in fact opium or one of its derivatives. We then held that a chemical analysis is not an indispensable prerequirement to the establishment of an allegation of this kind, and that “the ability to recognize these drugs can be acquired without a knowledge of chemistry to such an extent that testimony of a witness on the point may be entitled to great weight. Such technical knowledge is not required, and the degree of familiarity of a witness with such drugs only affects the weight and not the competency of his testimony.” So also we have frequent.., ruled adversely to contentions similar to those urged by counsel for appellant as to the lack of proof of the animits possidendi. As was said in the case of United States vs. Tin Masa (17 Phil. Rep., 463) “direct proof of facts of this nature, in a criminal proceeding, is rarely forthcoming, except in cases of confession, and their existence may, and usually must, be inferred from the varying circumstances in each particular case.” In the case at bar, the opium ash was found in a tin box in the house of the accused and no reasonable or credible explanation, inconsistent with the presumption that it waa there and then in his possession and control, animus possidendi, was offered as evidence; though testimony which the trial court found to be manifestly false and without foundation in fact was introduced by the defense to the effect that one Daniel Garces, a deputy provincial treasurer who aided in making the seizure, concealed the opium ash at the place where it was found by one of the police officers who accompanied him. Under all the circumstances, we think that the trial judge properly found that at the time of the seizure the opium ash was unlawfully and illegally in the possession of the accused, animus possidendi. We find no error in the proceedings at the trial prejudicial to the substantial rights of the accused, but we think the penalty imposed by the trial judge is excessive. It is true that the penalty prescribed by statute ranges from a fine of from three hundred to ten thousand pesos or imprisonment from three months to five years, or both such fine and imprisonment, but the discretion conferred upon the courts to impose a penalty within these broad limits upon conviction of the offense for which they are prescribed is not an arbitrary one, and should be exercised with due regard to circumstances of each case. We do not think that the mere possession of a few grains of opium ash is sufficient to justify the imposition of a fine of three hundred pesos and, in addition, an exceptionally long period of imprisonment. It is true that in this case there is evidence in the record tending to disclose that the accused has been convicted once before of the unlawful smoking of opium, but while the fact might justify the imposition of a prison sentence as well as a fine, it does not, in itself, necessitate or require the imprisonment of the accused for a period of nine months. Such severe penalties should be reserved for cases wherein there is reason to believe that the convict had been engaged in the exploitation of the vice, or wherein the number of convictions or other attendant circumstances clearly disclose that he is a contumacious and hardened offender or the like. (U. S. vs. Urn Sing, 23 Phil. Rep., 424; and the recent case of U. S. vs. Torres and Padilla, 15 Off. Gaz., 1345, decided August 20, 1915.) We are of opinion that a prison sentence of three months instead of nine months in addition to a fine of three hundred pesos will serve the ends of justice in this case; we conclude therefore, that the sentence imposed in the court below should be modified by the substitution of three months imprisonment, for so much thereof as imposes nine months imprisonment and that thus modified, it should be affirmed with the costs of this instance against the appellant. So ordered. Arellano, C.J., Torres, Trent, and Araullo, JJ., concur.