Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Constructive Possession
Constructive Possession
SUPREME COURT
Manila
SECOND DIVISION
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, G.R. No. 182348
Plaintiff-Appellee,
Present:
QUISUMBING, J., Chairperson,
- versus - CARPIO MORALES,
TINGA,
VELASCO, JR., and
BRION, JJ.
CARLOS DELA CRUZ, Promulgated:
Accused-Appellant.
November 20, 2008
x---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
--x
DECISION
VELASCO, JR., J.:
This is an appeal from the November 29, 2007 Decision of the Court of
Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. CR-H.C. No. 02286 entitled People of the
Philippines v. Carlos Dela Cruzwhich affirmed the September 16, 2005
Decision of the Regional Trial Court (RTC), Branch 77 in San Mateo,
Rizal in Criminal Case Nos. 6517 (Illegal Possession of Firearm and
Ammunition) and 6518 (Possession of Dangerous Drug). The RTC found
accused- appellant Carlos Dela Cruz guilty beyond reasonable doubt of
violation of Section 11(2) of Republic Act No. (RA) 9165
or The Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002.
The Facts
On November 15, 2002, charges against accused-appellant were made
before the RTC. The Informations read as follows:
Criminal Case No. 6517
That, on or about the 20 day of October 2002, in the
th
[1]
Rollo, p. 3.
[2]
Id. at 5.
[3]
CA rollo, p. 17.
[4]
Id. at 26. Penned by Judge Francisco C. Rodriguez, Jr.
[5]
Rollo, p. 18. The Decision was penned by Associate Justice Sixto C.
Marella, Jr. and concurred in by Associate Justices Mario L. Guaria III
and Japar B. Dimaampao.
[6]
People v. Naquita, G.R. No. 180511, July 28, 2008.
[7]
People v. Lagata, G.R. No. 135323, June 25, 2003, 404 SCRA
671, 676; citing People v. Tee, G.R. Nos. 140546-47, January 20, 2003,
395 SCRA 419.
[8]
Lagata, supra; citing People v. Burton, 335 Phil. 1003, 1024-
1025 (2000).
[9]
Rollo, p. 50.
[10]
G.R. No. 170837, September 12, 2006, 501 SCRA 591, 610-
611.
[11]
G.R. No. 139615, May 28, 2004, 430 SCRA 134, 152-153.
[12]
G.R. No. 168773, October 27, 2006, 505 SCRA 799, 818-819.
[13]
CA rollo, p. 25.
[14]
People v. Laguio, Jr., G.R. No. 128587, March 16, 2007, 518
SCRA 393, 422.
THIRD DIVISION
DECISION
VELASCO, JR., J.:
Contrary to law.
After due proceedings, the RTC, invoking, among other things, the
presumptive regularity in the performance of official duties, rendered,
on September 1, 2005, its judgment3 finding Fernando guilty beyond
reasonable doubt of possession of 14.052 grams of the prohibited
drug, methamphetamine hydrochloride, commonly known as shabu.
The fallo reads:
The Tarlac Provincial Crime Laboratory who has custody of the 14.052
grams of shabu, subject of this case is hereby ordered to transmit the
same to the Philippine Drug Enforcement Agency for proper disposition
and furnish the court proof of compliance.
SO ORDERED.
SO ORDERED.4
The Issues
Undaunted, Fernando is now with this Court via the present recourse
raising the very same assignment of errors he invoked before the CA,
thus:
II
The parties chose not to file any supplemental briefs, maintaining their
respective positions and arguments in their briefs filed before the CA.
In the case at bench, there is nothing in the records that would dictate
a departure from the above doctrinal rule as far as the testimonies of
prosecution witnesses PO3 Credo, SPO1 Fernandez, and P/Insp.
Dumlao are concerned. We see no valid reason, in fine, to discredit the
veracity of their narration. And as aptly noted by the trial court, there is
no evidence of any ill motive on the part of the police officers who
merely responded to a tip about a drug-pushing incident in their area.
The prosecution’s evidence established the fact that a bona fide follow-
up operation was undertaken following a phone call, reporting some
drug-pushing activities in Poblacion Norte. To recall, PO3 Credo, SPO1
Fernandez, and P/Insp. Dumlao, Chief of the Ramos police station,
made up the team that proceeded to the reported area to check the
veracity of the drug-related call. Upon reaching the target site, they
espied Fernando passing sachets of white crystalline substance. And
Fernando, upon noticing the arrival of policemen, lost no time in fleeing
from the scene. PO3 Credo gave chase and eventually collared the bag-
carrying Fernando and conducted an immediate search on the bag. The
search led to the discovery of two sachets and one small plastic bag
containing suspicious-looking crystalline substance and drug
paraphernalia, among other items.
On the other hand, SPO3 Fernandez and P/Insp. Dumlao ran after
Cortez and the two others, eventually arresting Cortez, who was initially
included in the original Information.15 What is fairly deducible from the
testimonies of the arresting operatives is that there were two separate
searches actually made: (1) the first done by PO3 Credo immediately
after he arrested Fernando which is the usual and standard police
practice; and (2) a subsequent one effected at the police station where
the bag was apparently marked and its contents inventoried.
The Court notes that immediately after his arrest, Cortez was also
searched but no illegal drugs were found in his person. It was obviously
for this reason that after the original Information was filed following an
inquest, Fernando and Cortez filed a joint Motion for Preliminary
Investigation and/or Re-Investigation. 16 The preliminary investigation
resulted in the filing of the Amended Information that dropped Cortez
as accused paving the way for the dismissal of the charge against him,
but retained Fernando as the sole accused in Criminal Case No. 12318.
To reiterate a long-settled rule, the Court will not disturb the trial
court’s evaluation of the credibility of witnesses, save when it had
overlooked, misunderstood, or misapplied some facts or circumstances
of weight and substance which, when considered, will alter the assailed
decision or affect the result of the case. 17 None of the exceptions obtain
in the case at bar.
Fernando’s allegation that the bag the police seized contained Cortez’s
driver’s license and wallet—a futile attempt to avoid culpability over his
possession of the bag—will not save the day for him. First, his assertion
on what the bag contained is belied by the Joint Affidavit 18 of the three
apprehending officers. It was stated under paragraph 5 of their joint
affidavit that the items found in the bag had been duly inventoried. The
items enumerated clearly did not include any wallet or driver’s license
of Cortez. Since said joint affidavit was used in the inquest to indict
Fernando and Cortez, the inventoried items would have included the
license and wallet adverted to, the search of the bag conducted in the
police station having been made in the presence of the barangay
captain of Poblacion Norte.
Without a trace of equivocation, the RTC and later the CA held that the
prosecution had discharged the burden of proving all the elements of
the crime charged. Since Fernando was caught carrying the
incriminating bag after the police had been tipped off of drug pushing in
the target area, any suggestion that he was not in actual possession or
control of the prohibited drug hidden in the area would be puny. Thus,
ownership of the bag is truly inconsequential.
xxxx
xxxx
SO ORDERED.
FIRST DIVISION
DECISION
PEREZ, J.:
Before this Court is an appeal assailing the 24 March 2011 Decision 1 of
the Court of. Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. CR.-H.C. No. 04288. The CA
affirmed the Decision of the Regional Trial Court (RTC), Branch 25,
Naga City, Camarines Sur finding the accused guilty of violating Section
11, Article II of Republic Act (R.A.) No. 9165, otherwise known as the
Comprehensive Drugs Act of 2002.
The Antecedents
That on or about October 21, 2008, in the City of Naga, Philippines and
within the jurisdiction of thisHonorable Court, the above-named
accused, without authority of law, did then and there, willfully,
unlawfully and criminally have in his possession, custody and control
nine and one-half (9 ½) bricks of suspected dried marijuana leaves with
fruiting tops weighing more or less 475 grams including its (sic)
wrapper; two (2) big bricks of suspected dried marijuana leaves with
fruiting tops weighing more or less 550 grams including its (sic)
wrapper; four (4) pieces of medium size cubes of suspected dried
marijuana leaves weighing more or less 41.1 grams including its (sic)
plastic containers; eighteen (18) pieces of small cubes of suspected
dried marijuana leaves with fruiting tops weighing more or less 55.4
grams including its (sic) plastic container; and seventy[-]seven (77)
pieces of small empty transparent plastic sachet, with a total weight of
more or less 1,121.5 grams, which is a dangerous drug, inviolation of
the above-cited law.2
After making the necessary markings, appellant and the items seized
from him were brought to the Naga City Police Station. 23
The seized items were returned to the court of origin but were
subsequently withdrawn for laboratory examination. 24A request to the
Camarines Sur Provincial Office was subsequently madeby SPO1
Aguilar and the seized items were immediately brought to the Crime
Laboratory for field test examination. 25 The seized items were duly
received by P/Insp. Edsel Villalobos (P/Insp. Villalobos). 26
The RTC ruled that the evidence presented during the trial adequately
proved all the elements of the offense.It held that appellant, not being
authorized by law, with full knowledge that the items were dangerous
drugs, had actual and exclusive possession, control and dominion over
the drugs found in his house.29 It likewise held that the officers strictly
complied with the guidelines prescribed by law on how drug operations
should be conducted by law enforcers and in takingcustody and control
of the seized drugs.30 On the other hand, accused failed to present any
substantial evidence to establish his defense of frame-up. The RTC
placed more weight on the affirmative testimonies of the prosecution
witnesses, rather than the denials of the accused because positive
testimonies are weightier than negative ones. 31 With the positive
identification made by the government witnesses as the perpetrator of
the crime, his self-serving denial is worthless. 32 Since there was nothing
in the record to show that the arresting team and the prosecution
witnesses were actuated by improper motives, their affirmative
statements proving appellant’s culpability were respected by the trial
court.
The CA affirmed the decision of the RTC, upon a finding that all of the
elements of illegal sale of dangerous drug have been sufficiently
established by the prosecution. It found credible the statements of
prosecution witnesses about what transpired during and after the test-
buy, service of search warrant, and arrest of the accused. Further, it
ruled that the prosecution has proven as unbroken the chain of custody
of evidence. The CA likewise upheld the findings of the trial court that
the entire operation conducted by the police officers enjoyed the
presumption of regularity, absent any showing of illmotive on the part
of those who conducted the same.
ISSUE
Our Ruling
Appellant submits that the trial court overlooked and misapplied some
facts of substance, which if considered, could have altered the verdict.
He maintains that he has no knowledge as to where the illegal drugs
were found as he was not in possession of the same, and alleged
thatthe bricks of marijuana were merely planted by the police
operatives.34
(1) The apprehending team having initial custody and control of the
drugs shall, immediately after seizure and confiscation, physically
inventory and photograph the same in the presence of the accused or
the person/s from whom such items were confiscated and/orseized, or
his/her representative or counsel, a representative from the media and
the Department of Justice (DOJ), and any elected public official who
shall be required to sign the copies of the inventory and be given a copy
thereof[.]
Strictly speaking, the aforecited provision of the IRR does not even
require that the certificate of inventory must indicate the markings and
the weight of the seized items. In fact, the rule even sanctions
substantial compliance with the procedure to establish a chain of
custody, as long as the integrity and evidentiary value of the seized
items are property preserved by the apprehending officers. In People v.
Pringas,42 the Court recognized that the strict compliance with the
requirements of Section 21 may not always be possible under field
conditions; the police operates under varied conditions, and cannot at
all times attend to all the niceties of the procedures in the handling of
confiscated evidence.
As correctly ruled by the CA, the prosecution was able to establish the
integrity of corpus delictiand the unbroken chain of custody. Aptly
noting the findings of the trial court:
SO ORDERED.
Republic of the Philippines
SUPREME COURT
Manila
FIRST DIVISION
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, G.R. No. 184599
Plaintiff-Appellee,
Present:
- versus - CORONA, C.J., Chairperson,
VELASCO, JR.,
LEONARDO-DE CASTRO,
TEDDY BATOON y MIGUEL and PERALTA,* and
MELCHOR BATOON y MIGUEL, PEREZ, JJ.
Accused-
Appellants. Promulgated:
November 24, 2010
x---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
--x
DECISION
VELASCO, JR., J.:
The Case
This is an appeal from the February 28, 2008 Decision [1] of the
Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. CR-H.C. No. 02472 entitled People of
the Philippines v. Teddy Batoon and Melchor Batoon, which affirmed the
August 11, 2006 Decision[2] in Criminal Case Nos. 11823-12 and
11823-13 of the Regional Trial Court (RTC), Branch 13 in Laoag
City. The trial court held accused-appellants Teddy Batoon and
Melchor Batoon guilty of violating Sections 5 and 11 of Republic Act No.
(RA) 9165 or the Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002.
The Facts
Melchor returned to where PO2 Vicente was and handed him the
sachet. Upon receiving the sachet, PO2 Vicente signaled to his
companions by turning his cap, to have its visor at the back of his
head. The other team members rushed to arrest Melchor and Teddy.
PO2 Vicente frisked Melchor and recovered from him one PhP 100 bill,
three pieces of five-peso coins, three pieces of one-peso coin, one jungle
knife, one lighter, and one brown wallet. PO1 Cabotaje got hold of Teddy
and recovered from him the marked PhP 500 bill, six PhP 100 bills, one
candy, and one black coin purse containing three elongated sachets
of shabu. Accused-appellants were then detained in the PAID-
SOT, CampJuan.
Meanwhile, Teddy, who had just come home from the Municipal
Trial Court of San Nicolas, was called by a neighbor and was told that
his brother was being arrested. He ran towards the place where his
brother was, about 30 to 40 meters north of their house. Upon reaching
the place, he asked the men what the commotion was about. Instead of
answering him, however, the men boxed him on the face. Thereafter, he
was also boarded into the vehicle together with Melchor. [8] The men
then took his money amounting to PhP 1,320 and his mobile phone.
The Issues
I.
The trial court gravely erred in convicting the accused-
appellants of the crimes charged despite the prosecution’s
failure to establish the identity of the prohibited drugs
constituting the corpus delicti of the offenses.
II.
The trial court gravely erred in finding that there was
conspiracy in the crime of illegal possession of shabu under
Criminal Case No. 11824 when the alleged confiscated drugs
were seized only from appellant Teddy Batoon’s possession.
III.
The trial court gravely erred in convicting the accused
appellant Melchor Batoon of the crime of illegal possession
of shabu under Criminal Case No. 11824 despite the
prosecution’s failure to prove his guilt beyond reasonable
doubt.[11]
In essence, accused-appellants question the chain of custody over
the alleged confiscated prohibited drugs and Melchor’s conviction for
illegal possession of shabu.
The Ruling of the Court
The appeal is without merit.
In a prosecution for illegal sale of dangerous drugs, the following
elements must be established: (1) proof that the transaction or sale took
place; and (2) the presentation in court of the corpus delicti or the illicit
drug as evidence.[12]
There is no question that the police conducted a valid buy-bust
operation against accused-appellants. The positive testimonies of the
police officers show the coordinated efforts of the PAID-SOT to entrap
accused-appellants while in the act of selling a prohibited drug. The
regularity of the performance of their duty on this matter could not be
overturned absent any convincing evidence to the contrary. [13]
Accused-appellants hinge their appeal on the alleged failure of the
police to comply with the procedure in the custody of seized prohibited
and regulated drugs as embodied in Sec. 21(a) of the Implementing
Rules and Regulations of RA 9165. They alleged that there was no
conclusive evidence to prove that the substances seized from accused-
appellants were the same substances subjected to examination and
presented in court.
We are not convinced. Records show that the chain of custody
over the seized substances was not broken, and that the drugs seized
from appellants were properly identified before the trial court. As
correctly appreciated by the trial and appellate courts, a legitimate buy-
bust operation led to the arrest of accused-appellants. During the police
operation, PO2 Vicente received from Melchor a sachet containing the
drugs.[14] On the other hand, PO1 Cabotaje seized from Teddy three
sachets, also containing drugs.[15] PO2 Vicente and PO1 Cabotaje
marked[16] and separately prepared the certification of the seized items.
[17]
Thereafter, they personally turned over the items to the crime
laboratory for examination.[18] The police chemist, P/Insp. Laya II, tested
the marked sachets, which turned out positive for methamphetamine
hydrochloride.[19] Finally, during trial, the same marked sachets were
identified by PO2 Vicente[20] and PO1 Cabotaje.[21]
Thus, the forgoing facts confirm that the police officers complied
with the procedure in the custody of seized prohibited drugs.
Also, Melchor cannot deny his involvement in the possession of
the shabu. For conviction of illegal possession of a prohibited drug to
lie, the following elements must be established: (1) the accused was in
possession of an item or an object identified to be a prohibited or
regulated drug; (2) such possession is not authorized by law; and (3) the
accused was freely and consciously aware of being in possession of the
drug. Notably, exclusive possession of the prohibited drug is not
required. As explained in People v. Huang Zhen Hua:
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. On the other
hand, constructive possession exists when the drug is under
dominion and control of the accused or when he has the
right to exercise dominion and control over the place where
it is found. Exclusive possession or control is not necessary.
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.
Thus, conviction need not be predicated upon
exclusive possession, and a showing of non-exclusive
possession would not exonerate the accused. Such fact of
possession may be proved by direct or circumstantial
evidence and any reasonable inference drawn 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. 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 way 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.[22]
In this case, although the three sachets containing shabu were
found solely in the possession of Teddy, it was evident that Melchor had
knowledge of its existence. Moreover, as correctly found by the CA,
Melchor had easy access to the shabu, because they conspired to
engage in the illegal business of drugs. The CA explained, thus:
As the records would show, when PO2 Vicente handed
to Melchor Batoon a marked [PhP] 500.00 bill, the latter
went to his brother Teddy and gave him money. Upon
receipt of the money, Teddy Batoon handed a sachet to
Melchor, who then gave it to PO2 Vicente. When the arrest
[was] affected on both of them, the three additional sachets
were found on [Teddy] by PO1 Cabotaje.
These acts of the accused indubitably demonstrate a
coordinated plan on their part to actively engage in the
illegal business of drugs. From their concerted conduct, it
can easily be deduced that there was common design to deal
with illegal drugs. Needless to state, when conspiracy is
shown, the act of one is the act of all conspirators. [23]
Hence, the prosecution successfully adduced proof beyond
reasonable doubt of accused-appellants Melchor and Teddy Batoon’s
guilt of the crimes charged.
WHEREFORE, the appeal is DENIED. The February 28, 2008 CA
Decision in CA-G.R. CR-H.C. No. 02472 upholding the conviction of
accused-appellants is AFFIRMED.
SO ORDERED.
FIRST DIVISION
DECISION
PEREZ, J.:
The subject of this review is the Decision 1 of the Court of Appeals in CA-
G.R. CR. HC No. 01135 dated 16 July 2012, which affirmed the
Judgment2 of the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Cebu City, Branch 57, in
Criminal Case No. CBU 74672, finding accused-appellant Juliet Pancho
guilty beyond reasonable doubt of violating Section 11, Article II of
Republic Act (R.A.) No. 9165 or the Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs
Act of 2002.
SPECIMEN SUBMITTED
FINDINGS:
CONCLUSION:
Accused-appellant denied the charge against her and alleged that she
was sewing a blanket in her bedroom on the second floor when two
police officers barged into her room and ordered her to go down. When
she went down, two other police officers came and one of them went up
to the bedroom. After a few seconds, the said police officer went back
down and called the barangay tanods. When the barangay
tanods arrived, accused-appellant was handcuffed and brought to the
police station. Accused-appellant later learned that she was being
charged with illegal possession of shabu.
(1) The apprehending team having initial custody and control of the
drugs shall, immediately after seizure and confiscation, physically
inventory and photograph the same in the presence of the accused or
the person/s from whom such items were confiscated and/or seized, or
his/her representative or counsel, a representative from the media and
the Department of Justice (DOJ), and any elected public official who
shall be required to sign the copies of the inventory and be given a copy
thereof[.]
SECTION 21. x x x.
In the instant case, the chain of custody of the seized illegal drugs was
not broken. The prosecution established that PO1 Veloso seized three
packets of shabu from the bedroom of accused-appellant. He handed
them over to PO2 Ilagan, who made markings on the items and
prepared a confiscation receipt of the same while in appellant's house.
PO2 Ilagan brought the confiscated shabu to the police station where he
prepared a letter-request addressed to the PNP Crime Laboratory. It was
PO2 Ilagan, accompanied by PO1 Veloso, who went to the PNP Crime
Laboratory to bring the specimen and the letter-request. PO2 Roma
received the shabu and forwarded the same to the forensic chemist.
The chain of custody was testified to by the police authorities. Clearly,
the recovery and the handling of the seized illegal drugs were
satisfactorily established in this case.
The failure of the members of the raiding team to deliver the seized
items to the judge who issued the warrant becomes immaterial because
records show that the chain of custody is intact.
(1) Life imprisonment and a fine ranging from Four hundred thousand
pesos (P400,000.00) to Five hundred thousand pesos (P500,000.00), if
the quantity of methamphetamine hydrochloride or "shabu" is ten (10)
grams or more but less than fifty (50) grams[.]
SO ORDERED.chanroblesvirtuallawlibrary