Two  Chinamen,  Lim  Chingco  and Go  Chingco,  were charged with a violation of the Opium Law in the Court of First Instance,  upon a complaint couched in the following language:

"That the said  accused, on or about the 27th day of March, 1909, in the jurisdiction of the municipality of Tiwi, Province  of Albay, P. I., knowingly and unlawfully, kept, possessed, and  held in  their  possession and  under  their control, eleven (11) pills of opium and about two (2) grams of prepared  opium, the said  accused not being officers of the Government, nor having a legal  permission from  the Collector of Internal Revenue, nor being licensed physicians, all contrary to law,"

Go Chingco on his plea of guilty  was convicted and sentenced to  pay a fine of P125.  Lim  Chingco entered a plea of not guilty, but was nevertheless convicted  and sentenced to pay a fine of P200.   Go Chingco  did not appeal, and the action is  before  us now  upon the single  appeal of Lim Chingco.

On the  28th of March,  1909, W. M. Paterson,  an agent of the Internal Revenue Department, found a small quantity of opium  and an opium-pipe cleaning instrument in  the store of the defendant, Lim Chingco.  Paterson  filed a complaint against Lim Chingco in the court of the justice of the peace of Albay, wherein a preliminary investigation was  held.   Lim Chingco upon being asked whether he was guilty or net guilty replied that he was guilty in that  the said  opium and opium-pipe cleaner were found in  his store, but that they did not belong to him and were the property of his employee, Go Chingco.   Thereupon Go  Chingco's name was inserted, together with  Lim Chingco's, in  the complaint, and he,  upon being examined  by the justice of the peace, admitted that the  opium and pipe cleaner were his property.

At the trial in the Court of First Instance, W. M. Paterson,  the internal-revenue agent who found the  opium and pipe  cleaner in the store of Lim Chingco, and Juan de Mata, the auxiliary justice of the peace, were the only witnesses who  testified for the prosecution.

The first of these witnesses, W. M. Paterson, testified, in part, as follows:

"Q. Was it you who filed a complaint with the court of the justice of the peace against Lim Chingco? - A. Yes.

"Q. And did you accuse him alone first? -  A. Yes, sir.

"Q. And why did you accuse Go Chingco later on? - A. Because, when he was asked  whether or not he was guilty at the court of the justice of the peace, he replied 'guilty,' saying that the apparatus for opium and the other utensils belonged to his clerk, and  that he knew that his clerk used these things.

"Q. And was it Go Chingco  who said that he was  the owner of  those articles? - A. Yes.  Then I requested  the court to include Go Chingco in that case."

The second witness, Juan de Mata, testified as follows:

"On account of the motion  presented by the complaining witness, the accused, after pleading guilty, made the additional statement that he is guilty because the corpus delicti was found in his store but that it did not belong to him, and he  says that he is guilty because it was found in his store, but that it was not his property; and that when the complaining witness learned these  words of the Chinaman, he told me that the Chinaman was guilty as charged because the said property was found in his  store, but that it did not belong to him; and then I asked the complaining witness who was the owner, and he then made the  motion  asking for the  inclusion of the Chinaman  Go Chingco in the complaint, and thereupon the motion was properly granted and I  afterwards  ordered  the president  to arrest  the  other Chinaman, and, when  arrested,  the latter was taken into the court and was instructed concerning the rights the law grants to him,  and I read to him the complaint in Spanish and translated it for him into Bicol, asking him if he understood it, to which he  answered affirmatively; and  then I asked him  whether or  not he was  guilty and he answered that he  was guilty because the property belongs to him."

The appellant testifying in his own behalf admitted that the witness Paterson had found the opium and pipe cleaner in his store,  but  alleged that  they were not his property but the  property  of his employee,  Go Chingco, and in explanation of his alleged plea of "guilty" in the court of the justice of the peace said that he did not declare  himself to be guilty of the crime as charged, but that he admitted that he was guilty of having the opium and pipe cleaner in his store, but explained that  they were  not his  property  but the property of his employee, Go Chingco; and that  he knew that they were  the property of  Go  Chingco,  not because  he had any knowledge of the fact that Go Chingco had them in his  possession before they  were  seized  but because  when Paterson discovered them and asked who was the owner, Go Chingco replied that  they were his.  Go Chingco, testifying as a witness, corroborated all that was said by  the appellant, and again admitted that the  opium and pipe cleaner were his exclusive  property.

We do not think that the testimony sustains the judgment of conviction of  the  appellant  by the trial  court.  The evidence  of record  does not sustain  a finding beyond a reasonable doubt that the appellant, Lim Chingco, was in possession of the opium and pipe cleaner at  the time when these articles were used.  It is true that their  discovery in his store tends  to raise a presumption, prima facie, that these goods were in his possession and under his control, but the uncontradicted evidence of record conclusively establishes that the seized articles were in fact the property of Go Chingco, and that they were at the time of their seizure in his exclusive possession, and   that  the  appellant,  Lim Chingco, had no knowledge of the fact that his employee, Go Chingco, had these articles in his possession or control.

The following citation from the decision  in the case of The United States vs.  Tan Tayco and  Co Sencho  (12 Phil. Rep.,  739),  wherein  the facts were somewhat analogous to those set out in  the record in this case, is directly in point, and decisive as to the innocence of the accused of the offense with which he is charged (p. 743):

"Possession has been defined to be the detention or enjoyment  of a thing which a man holds or exercises by himself or  by another  who keeps or exercises it  in his name. (Bouvier's  Law Dictionary, Rawles's Revision, Vol. II.) Clearly it involves a state of mind on  the part of the possessor whereby he intends to exercise and, as a  consequence of which, he does exercise a right of possession, whether that right be legal or otherwise; and while the intention and the will to  possess may be,  and usually are, inferred from  the  fact that the thing in  question is  under the apparent  power and control of the alleged possessor, nevertheless, the existence of the animus possidendi is subject to contradiction, and may be rebutted by evidence  which tends to prove that the person under  whose power  and control the thing in question appears to be, does not in fact exercise such power of control  and does  not intend  so to  do.   In order to complete a  possession, two things are required -  that there be an occupancy,  apprehension, or taking;  that the taking be with an intent to possess (animus possidendi). Hence, persons who have no legal wills,  as children of insufficient  understanding  and  idiots,  can not  possess or acquire a complete possession (Pothier, Etienne, see 1 Mer., 358; Abb. Sh., 9); so where stolen property is placed in the house or upon the premises of A, without his knowledge or consent, A is not properly  speaking in possession of such property, so long as he does not assert a right to its control, and is not moved by the animus possidendi with reference thereto.

"The statements of the  witness Avila, if they  can be believed, furnish  a full, satisfactory, and  sufficient explanation of the presence of the utensils for smoking opium in his  house at the time of their seizure,  which is  entirely consistent with the allegations of the  defendant that those utensils Were not at that time  in  their possession; and, therefore, entirely consistent with the innocence of  the defendants charged with a violation of the  provisions  of the above-cited section of the Opium Act."

The judgment of conviction of the appellant, Lim Chingco, and the  sentence imposed  upon  him by the trial court should be, and are hereby, reversed, with his share  of the costs in both instances de oficio,  and the appellant is acquitted of the offense with which he is charged.  So ordered.

Arellano,  C. J., Torres,  Mapa,  Johnson, Moreland,  and Elliott, JJ., concur.