Appellee Vs Vs Appellants: en Banc
Appellee Vs Vs Appellants: en Banc
The Indictment
The appellants Amadeo Tira and Connie Tira were charged in an Information which reads:
That on or about March 9, 1998, in the Municipality of Urdaneta, province of
Pangasinan and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the above-named
accused, conspiring together, did then and there willfully, unlawfully and
feloniously have in their possession, control and custody the following:
cdasiaonline.com
At around 8:00 p.m., the group, clad in civilian clothes, arrived at Perez Extension Street. As
they stationed themselves in the periphery of a store, they observed that more than twenty
persons had gone in and out of the Tira residence. They confronted one of them, and
asked what was going on inside the house. The person revealed that Amadeo Tira sold
shabu, and that he was a regular customer. The group went closer to the house and
started planning their next move. They wanted to pose as buyers, but hesitated, for fear of
being identified as PNP members. Instead, they stayed there up to 12:00 midnight and
continued observing the place. Convinced that illegal activities were going on in the house,
the policemen returned to the station and reported to P/Supt. Wilson R. Victorio. After
hearing their report, P/Supt. Victorio instructed his men to make an affidavit of surveillance
preliminary to an application for a search warrant. 5
On March 6, 1998, SPO3 Asidelio Manibog, PO3 Efren Abad de Vera, SPO1 Renato
Cresencia and PO2 Reynaldo Soliven Javonilla, Jr. executed an Affidavit of Surveillance,
alleging, inter alia, that they were members of the Drug Enforcement Unit of Urdaneta,
Pangasinan, and that in the evening of February 24, 1998, they confirmed reports of illegal
drug-related activities in the house of the spouses Amadeo and Connie Tira. 6 On March 6,
1998 7 Police Chief Inspector Danilo Bumatay Datu filed an Application for a Search
Warrant in the Municipal Trial Court of Urdaneta, Pangasinan, attaching thereto the affidavit
of surveillance executed by his men and a sketch of the place to be searched. 8
Satisfied with the testimonies of SPO3 Manibog, PO3 de Vera, SPO1 Cresencia and PO2
Javonilla, Jr., Judge Aurora A. Gayapa issued a search warrant commanding the applicants
to make an immediate search of the Tira residence at anytime of the day or night,
particularly the first room on the right side, and the two rooms located at Perez south, and
forthwith seize and take possession of the following items:
1.
2.
3.
Weighing scale. 9
P/Sr. Inspector Ludivico Bravo, and as head of the team, with SPO3 Cariaga, PO3
Concepcion, Cario, Galima, Villaroya, Andaya, SPO1 Mario Tajon, SPO1 Asterio Dismaya,
SPO1 Renato Cresencia, and PO3 Reynaldo Javonillo were directed to implement the
search warrant. 1 0 They responded and brought Barangay Kagawad Mario Conwi to
witness the search. 1 1 At 2:35 p.m. on March 9, 1998, the team proceeded to the Tira
residence. The men found Ernesto Tira, the father of Amadeo, at the porch of the house.
They introduced themselves and told Ernesto that they had a warrant authorizing them to
search the premises. Ernesto led them inside. The policemen found the newly awakened
Amadeo inside the first room 1 2 of the house. 1 3 With Barangay Kagawad Conwi and
Amadeo Tira, the policemen proceeded to search the first room to the right (an inner
room) and found the following under the bed where Amadeo slept: 1 4
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
disposable lighters
cdasiaonline.com
6.
They also found cash money amounting to P12,536 inside a shoulder bag placed on top of
the television, in the following denominations:
1 pc.
4 pcs.
P1,000.00 bill
-
500.00 bill
52 pcs.
100.00 bill
36 pcs.
50.00 bill
100 pcs.
53 pcs.
20.00 bill
10.00 bill
1 pc.
5.00 bill
1 pc.
1.00 coin 1 7
The policemen listed the foregoing items they found in the house. Amadeo's picture was
taken while he was signing the said certification. 1 8 Ernesto (Amadeo's father), also
witnessed the certification.
A joint affidavit of arrest was, thereafter, executed by SPO3 Asidelio Manibog SPO1 Mario
C. Tajon, SPO1 Asterio T. Dismaya, SPO1 Renato M. Cresencia and PO3 Reynaldo S.
Javonilla, Jr. for the apprehension of Amadeo Tira and Nelson Tira who were brought to
the police station for custodial investigation. The articles seized were turned over to the
PNP Crime Laboratory, Urdaneta Sub-Office, for examination. 1 9 In turn, a laboratory
examination request was made to the Chief of the Philippine National Police Service - 1,
Sub-Office, Urdaneta, Pangasinan for the following:
a.
b.
c.
d.
cdasiaonline.com
A criminal complaint was filed by P/Supt. Wilson R. Victorio against Amadeo Tira and
Connie Tira on March 10, 1998 for violation of Rep. Act No. 6425, as amended. 2 4 After
finding probable cause, Assistant Provincial Prosecutor Rufino A. Moreno filed an
Information against the Tira Spouses for illegal possession of shabu and marijuana, in
violation of Section 8, in relation to Section 20 of Rep. Act No. 6425. 2 5 A warrant of arrest
was issued against Connie Tira on May 13, 1998. However, when the policemen tried to
serve the said warrant, she could not be found in the given address. 2 6 She was arrested
only on October 6, 1998. 2 7
During the trial, the court conducted an ocular inspection of the Tira residence. 2 8
Barangay Kagawad Mario Conwi testified that on March 9, 1998, while he was at Calle
Perez, Urdaneta, Pangasinan, Capt. Ludivico Bravo asked to be accompanied to the Tira
residence. Capt. Bravo was with at least ten other policemen. As they parked the car at
Calle Perez, the policemen saw a man running towards the direction of the ricefields.
Kagawad Conwi and some of the policemen chased the man, who turned out to be Nelson
Tira. One of the policemen pointed to a sachet of shabu which fell to the ground near
Nelson. The policemen arrested him and proceeded to the house of Amadeo Tira to serve
the warrant. 3 6 When they reached the house, the other policemen were waiting. He saw
Amadeo and Connie Tira sitting by the door of the house in the sala. Thereafter, he and the
policemen started the search. 3 7 They searched the first room located at the right side (if
facing south), 3 8 and found marijuana, shabu, money and some paraphernalia. 3 9 An
inventory of the items seized was made afterwards, which was signed by Capt. Bravo and
Ernesto Tira. 4 0
Alfonso Gallardo, Amadeo's neighbor, testified that he was the one who constructed the
Tira residence and that the house initially had two rooms. The first room was rented out,
while the second room was occupied by the Spouses Amadeo and Connie Tira. 4 1
Subsequently, a divider was placed inside the first room. 4 2 He also testified that his house
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. 2016
cdasiaonline.com
was only three (3) meters away from that of the Tiras, and that only a toilet separated their
houses. 4 3 He denied that there were many people going in and out of the Tira residence. 4 4
The trial court upheld the validity of Search Warrant No. 3 issued by Judge Aurora Gayapa.
It found Amadeo's defense, that the room where the items were seized was rented out to
the couple Cris Tira and Gemma Lim, unsubstantiated. It held that Amadeo, as owner of
the house, had control over the room as well as the things found therein and that the inner
room was a secret and practical place to keep marijuana, shabu and related paraphernalia.
46
cdasiaonline.com
her husband was employed at the Glasshouse Trading. One of the rooms in their house
was occupied by their three boarders, two male persons and one female.
In the afternoon of March 9, 1998, she and her husband Amadeo were in their house, while
their boarders were in their respective rooms. At 2:30 p.m., she was in the kitchen taking
care of her one-year-old child. She had other three children, aged eight, four, and three,
respectively, who were watching television. Her husband Amadeo was sleeping in one of
the rooms. Suddenly, five policemen barged into their house and searched all the rooms.
The policemen found and seized articles in the room occupied by one of their boarders.
They arrested Amadeo, and her brother-in-law, Nelson Tira, and brought them to the police
station. The boarders, however, were not arrested.
Joy Fernandez, a neighbor of the Tiras, lived approximately ten meters away from the
latter. Since they had no television, she frequently went to her neighbor's house to watch
certain programs. In the afternoon of March 9, 1998, she was at the Tira residence
watching "Mirasol," while Connie was in the kitchen nursing her baby. Suddenly, about five
or ten persons ran inside the house and handcuffed Amadeo Tira. 5 2
The trial court did not believe that Connie Tira had no knowledge, control and possession
of the shabu and marijuana found in the first or inner room of their house. It stressed that
Connie and Amadeo Tira jointly controlled and possessed the shabu and marijuana that
the policemen found therein. It ratiocinated that it was unusual for a wife not to know the
existence of prohibited drugs in the conjugal abode. Thus, as husband and wife, the
accused conspired and confederated with each other in keeping custody of the said
prohibited articles. 5 4 The court also held that Connie Tira's flight from their house after the
search was an indication of her guilt. Connie, likewise, appealed the decision. 5 5
cdasiaonline.com
The Court shall resolve the assigned errors simultaneously as they are interrelated.
The appellants contend that the search conducted by the policemen in the room occupied
by Chris and Gemma Lim, where the articles and substances were found by the policemen,
was made in their absence. Thus, the search was made in violation of Section 7, Rule 126
of the Rules of Criminal Procedure, which provides:
SEC. 7.
Search of house, room, or premise, to be made in presence of two
witnesses. No search of house, room, or any other premise shall be made
except in the presence of the lawful occupant thereof or any member of his family
or in the absence of the latter, in the presence of two witnesses of sufficient age
and discretion residing in the same locality.
The appellants posit that the articles and substances found by the policemen in their
house are inadmissible in evidence, being the fruits of a poisonous tree. Hence, they
contend, they should have been acquitted of the crime charged. The appellants further
assert that the prosecution failed to prove that they owned the prohibited drugs, and that
the same were in their possession and control when found by the policemen. They insist
that it cannot be presumed that they were in control and possession of the said
substances/articles simply because they owned the house where the same were found,
considering that the room was occupied by Chris Tira and his live-in partner, Gemma Lim.
The appellant Connie Tira avers that she never fled from their house after the policemen
had conducted the search. Neither was she arrested by the policemen when they arrested
her husband.
The appeals have no merit.
Contrary to the appellants' claim, appellant Amadeo Tira was present when the policemen
searched the inner room of the house. The articles and substances were found under the
bed on which the appellant Amadeo Tira slept. The policemen did not find the said articles
and substances in any other room in the house:
Q
So when you reached the house of Amadeo Tira at the Tira's compound,
you saw the father and you told him you are implementing the Search
Warrant and your group was allowed to enter and you are allowed to
search in the presence of Amadeo Tira?
Yes, Sir.
PROS. DUMLAO
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. 2016
cdasiaonline.com
WITNESS:
A
What else?
Lighter, Sir.
COURT:
Q
If that shabu will be shown to you, could you identify the, same?
WITNESS:
A
Yes, Sir.
About the marijuana leaves, if shown to you could you identify the same?
Yes, Sir.
PROS. DUMLAO:
Q
What else did you find out aside from the marijuana leaves, shabu and
lighter?
xxx xxx xxx
COURT:
Q
cdasiaonline.com
Yes, Sir.
When you found shabu, lighter, marijuana, and money, what did you do?
My signature, Sir. 5 7
xxx xxx xxx
PROS. TOMBOC:
xxx xxx xxx
Q
And when you were allowed to enter the house, did you notice who was
present?
When you said Connie Tira, is she the same Connie Tira the accused in this
case?
Who else?
Yes, Sir.
Can you mention to the Honorable Court those items that you searched in
the house of Connie Tira and Amadeo Tira?
As per in (sic) our records, we found three (3) sachets containing suspected
Methamphetamine Hydrochloride "Shabu" residue; one (1) brick of
suspected dried marijuana leaves weighing more or less 750 grams;
twenty-four (24) tea bags containing dried marijuana leaves; six (6)
disposable lighter; one (1) roll aluminum foil; several empty plastics (tea
bag); several used and unused aluminum foil; and cash money amounting
to P12,536.00 in different denominations believe[d] to be proceeds of the
cdasiaonline.com
contraband, Sir.
Q
You said you recovered one (1) brick of marijuana leaves, showing to you a
(sic) one (1) brick suspected to be marijuana leaves, is this the one you are
referring to?
Appellant Amadeo Tira was not the only witness to the search; Kagawad Mario Conwi and
Ernesto Tira, Amadeo's father, were also present. Ernesto Tira even led the policemen
inside the house. This is evidenced not only by the testimony of Kagawad Conwi, but also
by the certification signed by the appellant himself, along with Kagawad Conwi and
Ernesto Tira. 5 9
The trial court rejected the testimony of appellant Amadeo Tira that the inner room
searched by the policemen was occupied by Chris Tira and his girlfriend Gemma Lim with
the following encompassing disquisition:
. . . The defense contention that a couple from Baguio City first occupied the first
room, the Court is not persuaded because they did not present said businessmen
from Baguio City who were engaged in vegetable business. Secondly, the same
room was rented by Chris Tira and Gemma Lim. Chris Tira and Gemma Lim,
engaged in banana business, were not presented in Court. If it were true that Chris
Tira and Gemma Lim were the supposed lessees of the room, they should have
been apprehended by the searching party on March 9, 1998, at about 2:30 p.m.
There was no proof showing that Chris Tira and Gemma Lim ever occupied the
room, like personal belongings of Chris Tira and Gemma Lim. The defense did not
even show proof showing that Chris Tira reside in the first room, like clothings,
toothbrush, soap, shoes and other accessories which make them the residents or
occupants of the room. There were no kitchen plates, spoons, powder, or soap
evidencing that the said room was occupied by Chris Tira and Gemma Lim.
Amadeo Tira contended that Chris Tira and Gemma Lim are engaged in banana
business. There are no banana stored in the room at the time of the search and
both of them were out of the room at the time of the search. And why did not
Amadeo Tira supply the police officers of the personal identities and address
where they could find Chris Tira and Gemma Lim at the time of the search. If they
were banana dealers, they must be selling their banana in the market and they
could have pointed them in the market. 6 0 . . .
We are in full accord with the trial court. It bears stressing that the trial court conducted an
ocular inspection of the house of the appellants, and thus, had first hand knowledge of the
layout of the house. Besides, the testimony of the appellant Amadeo Tira, that the inner
room was occupied by Chris Tira and Gemma Lim who were not there when the search
was conducted, is belied by the testimony of the appellant Connie Tira that the room was
occupied by two male and one female boarders who were in the room when the policemen
searched it. Thus:
Q
You said that while taking care of your baby, several policemen barged [sic]
your house?
xxx xxx xxx
Yes, Sir.
And they proceeded to your room where your husband was sleeping at that
time?
cdasiaonline.com
Yes, Sir.
And it is in that room where your husband was sleeping and where those
articles were taken?
No, Sir.
No more, Sir.
No, Sir. 6 1
We agree with the finding of the trial court that the only occupants of the house when the
policemen conducted their search were the appellants and their young children, and that
the appellants had no boarders therein.
Before the accused may be convicted of violating Section 8 of Republic Act No. 6425, as
amended by Rep. Act No. 7659, the prosecution is burdened to prove beyond reasonable
doubt the essential elements of the crime, viz: (1) the actual possession of an item or
object which is identified to be a prohibited drug; (2) such possession is not authorized by
law; and, (3) the accused freely or consciously possessed the said drug. 6 2
The essential elements of the crime of possession of regulated drugs are the following: (a)
the accused is found in possession of a regulated drug; (b) the person is not authorized by
law or by duly constituted authorities; and, (c) the accused has knowledge that the said
drug is a regulated drug. This crime is mala prohibita, and, as such, criminal intent is not an
essential element. However, the prosecution must prove that the accused had the intent to
possess (animus possidendi) the drugs. Possession, under the law, includes not only
actual possession, but also constructive possession. Actual possession exists when the
drug is in the immediate physical possession or control of the accused. 6 3 On the other
hand, constructive possession exists when the drug is under the dominion and control of
the accused or when he has the right to exercise dominion and control over the place
where it is found. 6 4 Exclusive possession or control is not necessary. 6 5 The accused
cannot avoid conviction if his right to exercise control and dominion over the place where
the contraband is located, is shared with another. 6 6
Thus, conviction need not be predicated upon exclusive possession, and a showing of nonexclusive possession would not exonerate the accused. 6 7 Such fact of possession may be
proved by direct or circumstantial evidence and any reasonable inference drawn
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. 2016
cdasiaonline.com
therefrom. However, the prosecution must prove that the accused had knowledge of the
existence and presence of the drug in the place under his control and dominion and the
character of the drug. 6 8 Since knowledge by the accused of the existence and character of
the drugs in the place where he exercises dominion and control is an internal act, the same
may be presumed from the fact that the dangerous drug is in the house or place over
which the accused has control or dominion, or within such premises in the absence of any
satisfactory explanation. 6 9
In this case, the prohibited and regulated drugs were found under the bed in the inner room
of the house of the appellants where they also resided. The appellants had actual and
exclusive possession and control and dominion over the house, including the room where
the drugs were found by the policemen. The appellant Connie Tira cannot escape criminal
liability for the crime charged simply and merely on her barefaced testimony that she was
a plain housewife, had no involvement in the criminal actuations of her husband, and had no
knowledge of the existence of the drugs in the inner room of the house. She had full
access to the room, including the space under the bed. She failed to adduce any credible
evidence that she was prohibited by her husband, the appellant Amadeo Tira, from entering
the room, cleaning it, or even sleeping on the bed. We agree with the findings and
disquisition of the trial court, viz:
The Court is not persuaded that Connie Tira has no knowledge, control and
possession of the shabu and marijuana (Exhibits "M," "N," "O" and "P") found in
their room. Connie Tira and Amadeo Tira jointly control and possess the shabu
(Exhibits "M" and "N") and marijuana (Exhibits "O" and "P") found in the room of
their house. It is unusual for a wife not to know the existence in their conjugal
abode, the questioned shabu and marijuana. The husband and wife (Amadeo and
Connie) conspired and confederated with each other the keeping and custody of
said prohibited articles. Both of them are deemed in possession of said articles in
violation of R.A. 6425, Section 8, in relation to Section 20.
The Information is defective because it charges two crimes. The appellants should have
filed a motion to quash the Information under Section 3, Rule 117 of the Revised Rules of
Court before their arraignment. They failed to do so. Hence, under Rule 120, Section 3 of
the said rule, the appellants may be convicted of the crimes charged. The said Rule
provides:
SEC. 3.
Judgment for two or more offenses. When two or more offenses
are charged in a single complaint or information but the accused fails to object to
it before trial, the court may convict him of as many offenses as are charged and
proved, and impose on him the penalty for each offense, setting out separately
the findings of fact and law in each offense.
IMPOSABLE PENALTY
prision correctional
prision mayor
reclusion temporal
reclusion perpetua
Considering that the regulated drug found in the possession of the appellants is only 1.001
grams, the imposable penalty for the crime is prision correctional. Applying the
Indeterminate Sentence Law, the appellants are sentenced to suffer an indeterminate
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. 2016
cdasiaonline.com
penalty of from four (4) months and one (1) day of arresto mayor in its medium period as
minimum, to three (3) years of prision correctional in its medium period as maximum, for
violation of Section 16 of Rep. Act No. 6425, as amended.
IN LIGHT OF ALL THE FOREGOING, appellants Amadeo and Connie Tira are found GUILTY
beyond reasonable doubt of violating Section 8, Article II of Rep. Act No. 6425, as
amended, and are hereby sentenced to suffer the penalty of reclusion perpetua, and
ORDERED to pay a fine of P1,000,000.00. The said appellants are, likewise, found GUILTY
beyond reasonable doubt of violating Section 16, Article III of Rep. Act No. 6425, as
amended, and are sentenced to suffer an indeterminate penalty of from Four (4) Months
and One (1) Day of arresto mayor in its medium period as minimum, to Three (3) years of
prision correccional, in its medium period, as maximum.
STHAaD
No costs.
SO ORDERED.
Vitug, Panganiban, Quisumbing, Ynares-Santiago, Sandoval-Gutierrez, Carpio, AustriaMartinez, Corona, Carpio Morales, Azcuna and Tinga, JJ ., concur.
Davide, Jr., C .J . and Puno, J ., are on official leave.
Footnotes
1.
2.
3.
Records, p. 1.
4.
The prosecution presented the following witnesses: Celestino B. Corpuz, SPO3 Asedilio
Manibog, SPO1 Asterio Dismaya, Police Inspector Panfilo M. Regis and Police
Superintendent Theresa Ann B. Cid.
5.
6.
7.
8.
Id. at 42.
9.
10.
11.
Ibid.
12.
13.
14.
15.
16.
17.
cdasiaonline.com
18.
19.
20.
21.
22.
23.
24.
Records, p. 7.
25.
Id. at 1.
26.
Id. at 36.
27.
Id. at 219.
28.
Id. at 82.
29.
Appellant Amadeo Tira presented the following: Alfonso Gallardo, Mario Conwi and
Amadeo Tira.
30.
31.
Id. at 6.
32.
33.
34.
Id. at 11.
35.
Id. at 810.
36.
37.
Id. at 6.
38.
Id.
39.
Id. at 9.
40.
Id. at 910.
41.
42.
Id. at 12.
43.
Id. at 34.
44.
Id. at 7.
45.
Records, p. 107.
46.
Id. at 104106.
47.
Id., at 122
48.
Id., at 116121.
cdasiaonline.com
49.
Id., at 128.
50.
Id., at 142.
51.
Id., at 150.
52.
53.
Records, p. 228.
54.
Id., at supra.
55.
Records, p. 229.
56.
Rollo, p. 95.
57.
58.
59.
Exhibit "8."
60.
Rollo, p. 47.
61.
62.
63.
64.
People v. Rice, 131 Cal. Rptr. 330 (1976); People v. Francis, 450 P.2d. 591 ().
65.
66.
People v. Francis, supra; People v. Jackson, 302 12 Cal. Rptr. 748; People v. Rice, supra.
67.
68.
69.
70.
cdasiaonline.com