This case has been cited 1 times or more.
|
2004-05-27 |
CARPIO MORALES, J. |
||||
| The case of U.S. v. Simbahan[29] cited by the appellate court has a different factual setting and is, therefore, inapplicable to the present case. In Simbahan, the accused, for a consideration of P50.00 pesos, disclosed to the owner of the missing carabao its precise location. There, this Court held: "The word possession as used above can not be limited to manual touch or personal custody. One who puts or deposits the stolen property in a place of concealment may be deemed to have such property in his possession. x x x All the facts and circumstances [including the absence of a satisfactory explanation of his possession] show conclusively that he had possession of said caraballa and fully justify his conviction."[30] | |||||