The discovery of  opium and of various utensils used in smoking opium, upon the premises of the defendant and appellant in  this case, was conclusively established by the evidence of record.   Indeed, the accused did  not deny the truth of the testimony of the witnesses to the effect that they  discovered opium  upon his premises.  He declared, however, that he knew nothing whatever about this opium and had no knowledge as to the fact that it was on his premises, or as to how  it had gotten there; and counsel, relying upon the case of the  U. S. vs. Tan Tayco and Co Sencho (12 Phil. Rep,, 739) insist that upon this showing the information should have been dismissed.

This contention  of counsel can not be maintained.  While it is true that in the case just cited we held that the discovery  of opium  in  the house or upon  the premises of an accused person is  not conclusive  evidence that such opium was in his possession and control, nevertheless it is under the law prima facie  evidence to that effect, and is sufficient to sustain  a conviction  in  the absence of a satisfactory explanation.   In the case at bar, we think that, under all the circumstances, as disclosed by the record, the trial court properly declined  to  accept the statements of the accused in regard to this matter; and we are of opinion that there can be no reasonable doubt that  he  had full knowledge  of the fact that this opium was on his premises at the time it was, discovered.

We find  no error  in the  proceedings  prejudicial to the rights of the accused, and the judgment of the lower court convicting him of the offense with which he is  charged, and imposing upon him the penalty prescribed by law, should be and is hereby affirmed, with the costs of this instance against the appellant,

Arellano, C.J., Mapa, Johnson, and Trent, JJ., concur.