Estores v. People
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: Petitioner Emily Estores y Pecardal, along with co-accused Miguel Canlas y Maniquis and Josefina Pecardal-Estores, were charged with violation of Section 16, Article III in relation to Section 2(e)(2), Article I of Republic Act (R.A.) No. 6425, as amended by R.A. No. 7659, for illegal possession of 1,120.6 grams of white crystalline substance containing methylamphetamine hydrochloride (shabu). Procedural History: The Regional Trial Court (RTC), Branch 219, Quezon City, found petitioner Emily and co-accused Miguel guilty beyond reasonable doubt, sentencing them to suffer the penalty of reclusion perpetua and to pay a fine of P1,000,000.00. Josefina was acquitted. The Court of Appeals (CA) affirmed the RTC decision. The Supreme Court, in this Petition for Review on Certiorari, reviewed the CA's decision. The Petition: Petitioner challenged the CA's ruling that she had "constructive" possession and knowledge of the prohibited drugs and that the search and seizure were not conducted in accordance with law.
Issue(s)
Whether or not the Court of Appeals erred in ruling that the petitioner has "constructive" possession and knowledge of the prohibited drugs. Whether or not the search and seizure and handling of the prohibited drugs were done in accordance with law.
Ruling
The Petition for Review on Certiorari is DENIED. The August 25, 2009 Decision and May 17, 2010 Resolution of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CR-HC No. 02794 are AFFIRMED. The Director General of the Bureau of Corrections and the Chief of the Bureau of Jail Management and Penology are REQUIRED to COMPUTE the time allowance due to petitioner Emily, if any, and thereafter, to SUBMIT their report and recommendation to this Court within fifteen (15) days from receipt of this Decision.
Ratio Decidendi
On the issue of constructive possession and knowledge of prohibited drugs: The Court held that the elements of Illegal Possession of Dangerous Drugs under 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, are: (1) the accused is in 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 and consciously possessed the said drug. The crime is mala prohibita, where criminal intent is not essential, but the intent to possess (animus possidendi) must be proven. Possession includes actual and constructive possession. 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 is not necessary, and shared control does not exonerate the accused. The fact of possession may be proven by direct or circumstantial evidence. Crucially, the prosecution must prove the accused's knowledge of the existence, presence, and character of the drug in the place under their control. This knowledge may be presumed from the fact that the dangerous drugs are found in a house or place over which the accused has control or dominion, in the absence of any satisfactory explanation. The finding of illegal drugs in a house or room occupied by the accused raises this presumption of knowledge and, standing alone, is sufficient to convict. In this case, the illegal drugs were found in a cabinet inside petitioner's room, which she admittedly shared with her live-in partner, Miguel. The Court found that petitioner exercised control and dominion over the room, and her claim of ignorance was unpersuasive, especially since mere denial cannot prevail over positive testimony and the presumption of regularity in the performance of official duties. The defense of denial, unsubstantiated by convincing evidence, is viewed with disfavor. The Court reiterated that the finding of illegal drugs in the room occupied and shared by petitioner and Miguel raises the presumption of knowledge and constructive possession, which, 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. The testimony of SPO2 Conlu clearly established that the plastic bag containing shabu was recovered from the third floor, in the room of the spouses Miguel and Emily, and that both were present at the time of recovery. The Court found that 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. These circumstances sufficiently lead to the conclusion that petitioner knew of the existence of the illegal drugs in her room and had constructive possession of the seized illegal drugs. Petitioner cannot feign ignorance of the existence of the illegal drugs since she admittedly has full access to the room and cabinet. Her disclaimer is simply unpersuasive. Her mere denial is insufficient to overcome the presumption of ownership. It is well established that the defense of alibi or denial, in the absence of convincing evidence, is invariably viewed with disfavor by the courts for it can easily be concocted, especially in cases involving the Dangerous Drugs Act. On the issue of the legality of the search and seizure and handling of the prohibited drugs: The Court ruled that Section 8, Rule 126 of the Revised Rules on Criminal Procedure, which requires a search to be made in the presence of the lawful occupant or any member of his family, or in their absence, two witnesses of sufficient age and discretion residing in the same locality, must be followed. The Court clarified that this rule establishes a hierarchy among the witnesses, prioritizing the lawful occupant or their family. The Court emphasized that the Rules of Court, promulgated by the Supreme Court, prevail over internal PNP rules like the PNP New Rules on Engagement, as the former derive their power from the Constitution. The Court found that the search was conducted in the presence of the lawful occupants, petitioner Emily and accused Miguel, thus satisfying the requirements of Rule 126. The Court also addressed the handling of the confiscated illegal drugs, noting that the offense occurred in 1999, prior to the effectivity of R.A. No. 9165 and its Implementing Rules and Regulations (IRR). Therefore, the strict compliance requirements under Section 21(a), Article II of the IRR of R.A. No. 9165 were not applicable. The Court found that the identity and evidentiary value of the illegal drug seized were sufficiently preserved. An inventory was prepared and acknowledged by accused Josefina, the item was marked by SPO2 Conlu, submitted by PCI Tambungan to the crime laboratory for examination, and received by PI Zata. Although photographs were intended to be taken, the film was exposed and damaged, preventing their submission. The testimonies of SPO2 Conlu, PCI Tambungan, and PI Zata corroborated each other regarding the recovery, submission, and examination of the seized substance, establishing its identity as methamphetamine hydrochloride. The Court upheld the presumption of regularity in the performance of official duties of the police officers, as the defense failed to present clear and convincing evidence of impropriety or improper motive.
Main Doctrine
The finding of illegal drugs in a room occupied and shared by the accused raises the presumption of knowledge and constructive possession, which, standing alone, is sufficient to convict, absent any satisfactory explanation rebutting such presumption. The defense of denial, unsubstantiated by credible evidence, cannot prevail over positive testimonies and the presumption of regularity in the performance of official duties.