If the fact of possession stands alone, wholly unconnected with any other circumstances, its value or persuasive power is very slight…
“[A] person found in possession of a thing taken in the doing of a recent wrongful act is the taker and the doer of the whole act” (Rule 131, section 2(j), 2019 Amended Rules on Evidence).
“We have… adverted to the possession of the instruments or of the fruits of a crime as affording ground to presume the guilt of the possessor…” (A treatise on the Law of Evidence, Wigmore, Greenleaf, and Harriman).
“[T]he presumption being not conclusive but disputable, and therefore to be dealt with by the [court], as a mere inference of fact.”
“In the first place, if the fact of possession stands alone, wholly unconnected with any other circumstances, its value or persuasive power is very slight…” (A treatise on the Law of Evidence, Wigmore, Greenleaf, and Harriman).
It is possible that “the real criminal may have artfully placed the article in the possession or upon the premises of an innocent person, … to conceal his own guilt; whether it be the instrument of homicide, burglary, or other crime, or the fruits of robbery or larceny; or it may have been thrown away by the felon, in his flight, and found by the possessor…” (A treatise on the Law of Evidence, Wigmore, Greenleaf, and Harriman).
“A presumption is an assumption of fact that the law requires to be made from another fact or group of facts found…in the action. It is an inference as to the existence of a fact not actually known, arising from its usual connection with another which is known, or a conjecture based on past experience as to what course of human affairs ordinarily take” (Mabunga v. People, G.R. 142039, May 27, 2004).
“In criminal cases, however, presumptions should be taken with caution especially in light of serious concerns that they might water down the requirement of proof beyond reasonable doubt.
“As special considerations must be given to the right of the accused to be presumed innocent, there should be limits on the use of presumptions against an accused” (G.R. 142039, May 27, 2004).
“It will be necessary, therefore, for the prosecutor [in a criminal case] to add the proof of other circumstances indicative of guilt, in order to render the naked possession of the thing available towards a conviction; such as… his refusal to give any explanation of the fact, or giving false or incredible accounts of the manner of the acquisition…” (A treatise on the Law of Evidence, Wigmore, Greenleaf, and Harriman).
“Although possession of stolen property within a limited time from the commission of the theft or robbery is not in itself a crime, it being possible to possess the same and remain innocent, such possession may be sufficient for the formation of an inference that the possessor is the thief unless the evidence satisfactorily proves that the property was acquired by the accused by legal means” (G.R. 142039, May 27, 2004).
“According to the modern view… [t]he conviction rests wholly upon an inference of fact as to the guilt of the accused. If as a matter of probability and reasoning based on the fact of possession of the stolen goods, taken in connection with other evidence, it may fairly be concluded beyond reasonable doubt that the accused is guilty of the theft…” (G.R. 142039, May 27, 2004 citing United States v. Catimbang).
“[E]xperience of men has taught them that an apparently guilty possession may be explained so as to rebut such an inference and an accused person may… explain his possession [that] will rebut the inference as to his guilt…” (G.R. NO. 142039, May 27, 2004).
“It is in this sense that… the unexplained possession of recently stolen goods will sustain a conviction of the crime of larceny” (G.R. NO. 142039, May 27, 2004).
Before an inference of guilt arising from possession of recently stolen goods can be made, however, the following basic facts need to be proven by the prosecution: (1) that the crime was committed; (2) that the crime was committed recently; (3) that the stolen property was found in the possession of the defendant; and (4) that the defendant is unable to explain his possession satisfactorily (G.R. NO. 142039, May 27, 2004).
The fact that “he has attempted to dispose of it, or to destroy its marks; or that he has fled or absconded, or was possessed of other stolen property of pick-lock keys, or other instruments of crime… [may] awaken suspicion against him, [or] corroborate the inference or guilty possession” (A treatise on the Law of Evidence, Wigmore, Greenleaf, and Harriman).
In the case of United States v. Ungal involving the theft of large cattle, the two such animals were found in the possession of the defendant, who did not offer credible explanations as to how he came into possession of the cattle.
“That his explanation showing how he obtained possession of said animals is unsatisfactory is shown by the proof” (G.R. L-13081 March 20, 1918).
“Generally, one who obtains possession of property rightfully and legally has but little difficulty in justifying his possession.
“It is a rule established by an abundance of jurisprudence, when stolen property is found in the possession of one, not the owner, without a satisfactory explanation of his possession, that he will be presumed to be the thief” (G.R. L-13081 March 20, 1918).
“It is [a] well settled rule that the possession of stolen goods is prima facie evidence that the possessor is the thief and throws on him the necessity of accounting for his possession.”
The accused’s inability “to give a satisfactory explanation of his possession of the same… is sufficient in itself to sustain a finding that the defendant is guilty of the theft of both animals” (G.R. No. L-13081 March 20, 1918).
“But, to raise the presumption of guilt from the possession of the fruits of the instruments of crime by the prisoner, it is necessary that they be found in his exclusive possession.
“A constructive possession, like constructive notice or knowledge, though sufficient to create a civil liability, is not sufficient to hold the party responsible to a criminal charge” (A treatise on the Law of Evidence, Wigmore, Greenleaf, and Harriman).
“He can only be required to account for the possession of things which he actually and knowingly possessed; as, for example, where they are found upon his person, or in his private apartment, or in a place of which he kept the key” (A treatise on the Law of Evidence, Wigmore, Greenleaf, and Harriman).
“If they are found upon premises owned or occupied as well by others as himself, or in a place to which others have equal facility and right of access, there seems no good reason why he, rather than they, should be charged upon this evidence alone” (A treatise on the Law of Evidence, Wigmore, Greenleaf, and Harriman).
In the case of Mabunga v. People, the HOPE box that was opened by the police authorities and found to contain the missing typewriter is the same box allegedly entrusted by the appellant to the cashier of the restaurant. Read full article on www.manilastandard.net
The box was allegedly left at around 3:00 in the afternoon until it was opened by the police authorities at around 9:00 in the evening.
The PPA terminal is a busy place, and the HOPE box was not concealed, making it accessible to anyone entering and leaving the PPA terminal as it was placed just below one of the benches.
“It cannot thus be concluded that… appellant was still in constructive possession thereof, the exercise of exclusive dominion or control being absent” (G.R. 142039, May 27, 2004).
“[A]part from appellant’s supposed possession of the HOPE box on October 15, 1994, no other evidence was adduced by the prosecution linking him to the robbery … [and] the fact of possession alone, wholly unconnected with any other circumstances, cannot be relied with certitude to convict one with robbery…”(G.R. NO. 142039, May 27, 2004).
“In the absence of positive and indubitable evidence showing unlawful taking by the accused…, the prosecution cannot rely with certitude on the fact of possession alone.
“The Court’s application of the presumption… has been invariably limited to cases where such possession is either unexplained or that the proffered explanation is rendered implausible…” (G.R. 142039, May 27, 2004 citing People v. Geron).
The post Unexplained possession of stolen property appeared first on Manila Standard.
0 Comments