THIRD DIVISION
G.R. No. 192332, January 11, 2021
EMILY ESTORES Y PECARDAL, Petitioner, v. PEOPLEOF THE PHILIPPINES Respondent.
D E C I S I O N
HERNANDO, J.:
Challenged in this Petition for Review on Certiorari1 is the August 25, 2009 Decision2 and May 17, 2010 Resolution3 of the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. CR-HC No. 02794, which affirmed the June 30, 2006 Decision4 of the Regional Trial Court (RTC), Branch 219, Quezon City in Criminal Case No. Q-99-85436 which found petitioner Emily Estores y Pecardal (Emily) and her co-accused Miguel Canlas y Maniquis (Miguel) guilty beyond reasonable doubt of violation of Section 16, Article III in relation to Section 2(e)(2), Article I of Republic Act (R.A.) No. 6425, otherwise known as The Dangerous Drugs Act of 1972, as amended by R.A. No. 7659. Both were sentenced by the trial court to suffer the penalty of reclusion perpetua and to pay a fine of P1,000,000.00.
The Antecedents:
Petitioner Emily and her co-accused Miguel and Josefina Pecardal-Estores (Josefina) were charged before the RTC with violation of Section 16, Article III in relation to Section 2(e)(2), Article I of R.A. No. 6425 as amended by R.A. No. 7659, in an Information5 that reads:chanroblesvirtualawlibrary
That on or about the 15th day of July 1999 in Quezon City, Philippines, the said accused, conspiring, confederating and mutually helping one another did then and there willfully, unlawfully, and knowingly possess and/or use one thousand one hundred twenty point six (1,120.6) grams of white crystalline substance containing methylamphetamine hydrochloride, a regulated drug, without the necessary license and/or prescription therefor, in violation of said law.6chanRoblesvirtualLawlibraryUpon arraignment, Emily pleaded not guilty to the crime charged.7 Thereafter, trial on the merits ensued. Senior Police Officer 2 Antonio Conlu (SPO2 Conlu), Police Inspector Edwin Zata (PI Zata), Police Chief Inspector Christopher Tambungan (PCI Tambungan), Police Officer 2 Rogelio P. Lagran (PO2 Lagran) and Police Senior Inspector Sonia Sahagun Ludovico (PSI Ludovico) appeared as witnesses for the prosecution.
WHEREFORE, the court finds the accused MIGUEL CANLAS y MANIQUIS and EMILY ESTORES y PERCARDAL, GUILTY beyond reasonable doubt of Viol. of Sec. 16, Art. III in rel. to Sec. 2 (e) (2), Art. I of R.A. 6425 as amended by R.A. 7659, and thereby sentences both of them to suffer the penalty of RECLUSION PERPETUA and to each pay the fine in the amount of ONE MILLION PESOS (P1,000,000.00).Ruling of the Court of Appeals:
For failure of the prosecution to prove the guilt of the accused JOSEFINA PERCARDAL-ESTORES beyond reasonable doubt of the crime charged in the information, judgment is hereby rendered ACQUITTING her of the charge.
SO ORDERED.19chanRoblesvirtualLawlibrary
Prescinding from the foregoing, We affirm the ruling of the trial court finding accused-appellant guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of violation of Section 16, Article III in relation to Section 2 (e) (2), Article I of Republic Act (R.A.) 6425, as amended by R.A. 7659, having been found in possession of 1,120.6 grams of shabu. The imposed penalty of reclusion perpetua and a fine of P1,000,000.00 is maintained.Petitioner's Motion for Reconsideration was subsequently denied by the appellate court in its May 17, 2010 Resolution.26
WHEREFORE, premises considered, the instant appeal is DENIED. The assailed Decision dated June 30, 2006 of the Regional Trial Court of Quezon City, Branch 219, is hereby AFFIRMED.25chanRoblesvirtualLawlibrary
Petitioner's Arguments:I
WHETHER OR NOT THE COURT OF APPEALS ERRED IN RULING THAT PETITIONER HAS "CONSTRUCTIVE" POSSESSION AND KNOWLEDGE OF THE PROHIBITED DRUGS.II
WHETHER OR NOT THE SEARCH AND SEIZURE AND HANDLING OF THE PROHIBITED DRUGS WERE DONE IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW.29chanRoblesvirtualLawlibrary
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 posidendi) 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. 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. 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.When a prohibited drug is found in a house or other building belonging to and occupied by a particular person, the presumption arises that such person is in possession of such drugs in violation of law. The fact of finding the said illegal drug is sufficient to convict.42 In other words, the finding of illegal drugs in a house owned by the accused, or in this case, the room occupied and shared by petitioner and accused Miguel, raises the presumption of knowledge and, standing alone, was sufficient to convict. Petitioner failed to present any evidence to rebut the existence of animus possidendi over the illegal drugs found in the cabinet inside her room. Her claim that she was unaware that illegal drugs were in her room fails to convince. Mere denial cannot prevail over the positive testimony of a witness. It is a self-serving negative evidence which cannot be accorded greater evidentiary weight than the declaration of credible witnesses who testify on affirmative matters.43 As testified by PO2 Conlu:44chanrobleslawlibrary
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 may be presumed from the fact that the dangerous drugs 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.41chanRoblesvirtualLawlibrary
FISCALIn this case, the illegal drugs were found in the cabinet inside petitioner's room which she admittedly shared with Miguel. The fact that petitioner shared with Miguel the room where the illegal drugs were found, will not exculpate her from criminal liability. First, petitioner Emily exercised control and dominion over the said room where the illegal drugs were found as she was the occupant. Petitioner herself admitted that Miguel did not permanently stay therein as he normally would stay out for two to three months. Lastly, she testified that when the search was conducted, she was sleeping inside the room where the illegal drugs were found while accused Miguel was in another room.
Q: When you entered the house, what happened next, if any?
A: We conducted a search and a plastic bag containing shabu was recovered.
x x x
Q: Who was the one who recovered that plastic bag with the alleged shabu?
A: I was the one, ma'am.
Q: What portion of the house were you able to get that?
A: On the third floor, ma'am.
Q: Who were present at that time when you were able to recover it on the third floor?
A: The husband and wife, Miguel and Emily. (Witness pointing to a man seated in the courtroom who when asked to identify themselves gave their names as Miguel Canlas and Emily Estores).
Q: Do you know whose room was that from where you recovered the plastic bag?
A: Their room. (Witness pointing to the two accused earlier identified as Miguel Canlas and Emily Estores).45chanRoblesvirtualLawlibrary
SEC. 8. Search of house, room, or premises to be made in presence of two witnesses. - No search of a house, room, or any other premises 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, two witnesses of sufficient age and discretion residing in the same locality.In People v. Go,48 we clarified that the Rules of Court clearly and explicitly establishes a hierarchy among the witnesses in whose presence the search of the premises must be conducted. Thus, a search under the strength of a warrant is required to be witnessed by the lawful occupant of the premises sought to be searched.49 Only upon their absence may two (2) persons of sufficient age and discretion residing in the same locality be made to stand as their replacements.50 This is the rule notwithstanding that the PNP New Rules on Engagement makes it mandatory the presence of at least two witnesses during the conduct of the search.
(5) Promulgate rules concerning the protection and enforcement of constitutional rights, pleading, practice, and procedure in all courts, the admission to the practice of law, the Integrated Bar, and legal assistance to the underprivileged. Such rules shall provide a simplified and inexpensive procedure for the speedy disposition of cases, shall be uniform for all courts of the same grade, and shall not diminish, increase, or modify substantive rights. Rules of procedure of special courts and quasi-judicial bodies shall remain effective unless disapproved by the Supreme Court. [Emphasis ours.]Section 8, Rule 126 of the Revised Rules on Criminal Procedure which requires the presence of the lawful occupant of the place to be searched or any member of his or her family; and in the absence thereof, the presence of at least two witnesses of sufficient age and discretion residing in the same locality, enforces and protects Section 2, Article III of the 1987 Constitution which speaks of the right against unreasonable search and seizure, to wit:chanroblesvirtualawlibrary
SECTION 2. The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects against unreasonable searches and seizures of whatever nature and for any purpose shall be inviolable, and no search warrant or warrant of arrest shall issue except upon probable cause to be determined personally by the judge after examination under oath or affirmation of the complainant and the witnesses he may produce, and particularly describing the place to be searched and the persons or things to be seized.Thus, the power of the Court to promulgate rules for the protection and enforcement of constitutional rights as sanctioned by the 1987 Constitution cannot be encroached upon by the executive department, more specifically, by the issuance by the PNP of its Rules of Engagement.
FISCALThe testimony of PO2 Conlu has been corroborated by the testimony P/C Insp. Tambungan, viz.:53chanrobleslawlibrary
Q: So when you searched the room, you were with Major Tambungan?
A: Yes, ma'am.
Q: You mentioned... By the way, Mr. Witness, again, where did you recover that plastic bag?
A: In a cabinet in the bedroom of the spouses on the third floor.
Q: And when you recovered that, what else did you do, if any?
A: We apprised them of their constitutional rights and informed them of their violation.
Q: After informing them of their rights, what did you do?
x x x
A: They were brought downstairs by Major Tambungan together with the recovered item.
Q: After that what happened?
A: Then we brought them to our office together with the recovered item.
Q: And what did you do with this recovered item?
A: We sent it to the PNP Crime Lab for examination.
Q: When you say "we", who are these persons you are referring to?
A: Major Tambungan, ma'am.
Q: Who in particular submitted the specimen to the crime laboratory?
A: Major Tambungan.
Q: If you will be able to see that plastic bag containing this white crystalline substance, will you be able to identify the same?
A: Yes, ma'am.
Q: And were you able to find out what x x x the contents [were] or what was that white crystalline substance which you recovered from the room?
x x x
A: Yes, ma'am.
Q: What did you find out?
A: It was tested positive for methamphetamine hydrochloride.52chanRoblesvirtualLawlibrary
FISCAL CHUA CHENGLastly, the prosecution presented PI Zata, the forensic chemist who received and examined the confiscated illegal drug, to wit:54chanrobleslawlibrary
Q: You said that you conducted the search in the house of Aling Pining?
A: Yes, ma'am.
Q: What is the result of that search?
A: We were able to recover the alleged shabu at that third floor occupied by Emily Estores and Miguel Canlas, Ma'am.
Q: Who personally recovered that?
A: SPO2 Conlu, Ma'am.
Q: Upon recovery of that item, what did you do?
A: I instructed him to, Hawakan niya, Ma'am at ilagay sa isang plastic na safe, the stuff.
Q: What happened next, if any?
A: After the shabu, I informed them that this item is the illegal drugs and we arrested the three (3) who were named in the Search Warrant, Ma'am.
Q: Did you inform them of their rights?
A: Yes, Ma'am.
Q: After informing them of their rights, what happened next, if any?
A: We brought them to our office, Ma'am.
Q: Where?
A: At the Ninoy Aquino International Airport (NAIA).
Q: How about the recovered items?
A: Together with the recovered items, Ma'am.
Q: What did you do with the recovered items?
A: After that we [made a] request for laboratory examination, Ma'am.
Q: You mentioned Mr. Witness that you made a request for laboratory examination?
A: Yes, Ma'am.
Q: Showing to you Exhibit F, will you please go over the same and tell us what relation has this request for laboratory examination?
A: This is the one, Ma'am. This is the request for laboratory examination to the PNP Crime Laboratory.
Q: There is a signature above the typewritten name Christopher E. Tambungan, whose signature is this?
A: My signature, Ma'am.
x x x
Q: Mr. Witness, on this document also marked as Exhibit F there is a stamp received by the PNP Crime Laboratory and across, delivered by: PCI Tambungan. Do you know who is this PCI Tambungan?
A: I was the one who brought that, Ma'am.
x x x
Q: Mr. Witness, you said that you were the one who made this request?
A: Yes, Ma'am.
Q: Stating herein that, for laboratory examination?
A: Yes, Ma'am.
Q: Now, who delivered the items stated in this laboratory request to the PNP Crime Laboratory?
A: I was the one who delivered the stuff, Ma'am.
x x x
Q: Do you have any proof that you were the one who delivered the specimen?
A: This is the one, Ma'am delivered by.
x x x
Q: Do you know who is this PCI Tambungan mentioned in this delivered by?
A: I'm the one, Ma'am.
x x x
Q: After delivering this specimen for laboratory examination, do you know if the specimen was actually examined?
A: Yes, Ma'am.
Q: Were you able to get the result of that examination?
A: Yes, Ma'am.
x x x
Q: Now, after you were able to, were you able to get a copy of the result?
A: Yes, Ma'am.
FISCAL CHUA CHENGBased on the foregoing, the evidence clearly shows that petitioner was caught in constructive possession of illegal drugs found in her room by virtue of a search and seizure conducted by the police officers. The testimonies of the SPO2 Conlu and PCI Tambungan also proved that the identity and evidentiary value of the confiscated illegal drugs were duly preserved. The testimonies of the police officers were consistent with and corroborated each other.
Q: Stated in this request is item #2 wherein one (1) plastic bag containing white crystalline substance of suspected methamphetamine hydrochloride (shabu) marked as AC, more or less one (1) kilo was submitted to your office?
A: Yes, ma'am.
Q: Who x x x received that plastic bag containing while crystalline substance?
A: I personally received it, ma'am.
Q: Where is that evidence?
A: It's now in my possession, ma'am.
Q: Now Mr. Witness, What (sic) proof do you have that you were the one who personally received that specimen?
A: I placed my name in the stamp mark ma'am.
x x x
Q: Now Mr. Witness, upon receipt of this specimen stated in Exhibit F, what did you do?
A: I record it in our logbook and placed the corresponding case report No. D-3338-99.
Q: After recording it in your logbook, what did you do?
A: I conducted first the physical examination of the evidence submitted and placed a masking tape sealed transparent plastic bag with markings letter AC.
Q: How did you conduct the physical examination?
A: I described the specimen, the physical characteristics, the physical appearance of the evidence submitted which is one (1) masking tape sealed transparent plastic bag containing the weight of 1,120.6 grams of white crystalline substance with markings AC.
Q: You earlier mentioned that this plastic bag was sealed with a masking tape?
A: Yes, ma'am.
Q: Is this the masking tape at that time?
A: Yes, ma'am.
Q: There are markings on this masking tape. Do you know who placed this markings? (sic)
A: No, ma'am. This was previously marked by the apprehending officer.
Q: On the other side of this masking tape whose marking reading "D-3338-99 EEZ", Do you know who placed this markings? (sic)
A: Yes, ma'am I was the one who placed this markings. (sic)
x x x
Q: Now Mr. Witness, after taking the physical characteristics of this specimen, what else did you do?
A: I opened the plastic bag, ma'am and I weighed the specimen, then subject to the chemical examination.
x x x
Q: What examination did you conduct?
A: After [measuring] the weight of the specimen, I took x x x representative samples of these three (3) at random sampling. I used the Simon's Test, which is a specific test for methylamphetamine hydrochloride.
x x x
Q: After conducting the test, what did you find out?
A: I found out that the specimen yielded a positive result for methylarnphetamine hydrochloride indicating the deep blue color and also the known standard. It also gives the blue color.
x x x
Q: After conducting this Confirmatory Examination, what did you find out?
A: I found out that the specimen submitted gave a positive result for methylamphetamine hydrochloride.
x x x
Q: Did you reduce your findings in writing?
A: Yes, ma'am. I prepared the initial laboratory report.
x x x
Q: After preparing this initial report, what else did you do?
A: I prepared the final report, ma'am.55chanRoblesvirtualLawlibrary
Endnotes:
1Rollo, pp. 8-22.
2 CA rollo, pp. 279-299; penned by Associate Justice Rosmari D. Carandang (now a Member of this Court) and concurred in by Associate Justices Arturo G. Tayag and Michael P. Elbinias.
3 Id. at 317-318.
4 Records, pp. 716-767; penned by Judge Bayani V. Vargas.
5 Id. at 1-2.
6 Id. at 1.
7 Id. at 90.
8Rollo, p. 24.
9 Records, p. 108.
10Rollo, p. 26.
11 Records, p. 137.
12Rollo, pp. 26-27.
13 Id. at 28.
14 Id. at 28-29.
15 Id. at 29.
16 Records, pp. 716-767.
17 Id. at 764.
18 Id. at 767.
19 Id.
20 CA rollo, pp. 279-299.
21 Id. at 289-292.
22 Id. at 289-290.
23 Id. at 292-295.
24 Id. at 298-299.
25 Id.
26 Id. at317-318.
27Rollo, pp. 8-22.
28 Id. at 11.
29 Id. at 10-11.
30 Id. at 112.
31 474 Phil. 152 (2004).
32Rollo, pp. 12-13.
33 Id. at 16-19.
34 Id. at 115.
35 Id. at 116-119.
36 Id. at 119-120.
37 Id. at 120-121.
38 Id. at 124-125.
39People v. Dela Cruz, 592 Phil. 207, 215 (2008) citing People v. Naquita, 582 Phil. 422 (2008).
40 Supra note 31.
41 Id. at 173-174.
42People v. Torres, 533 Phil. 227, 247 (2006).
43 Id.
44 Records, Vol. 1, TSN, March 22, 2000, pp. 14-16.
45 Id.
46People v. Macabare, 613 Phil. 474, 484 (2009) citing People v. Hindoy, 410 Phil. 6 (2001).
47 Id. citing People v. Del Mundo, 418 Phil. 740 (2001).
48Bulauitan v. People, G.R. No. 218891, September 19, 2016 citing People v. Go, 457 Phil. 885 (2003).
49 Id.
50 Id.
51 Records, Vol. 1, TSN, March 22, 2000, pp. 21-25.
52 Id.
53 Id. Vol. 1, TSN, October 23, 2000, pp. 9-14.
54 Id. Vol. 1, TSN, June 29, 2000, pp. 14-25.
55 Id.
56 AN ACT AMENDING ARTICLES 29, 94, 97, 98 AND 99 OF ACT NO. 3815, AS AMENDED, OTHERWISE KNOWN AS THE REVISED PENAL CODE.cralawredlibrary