People vs. Dela Trinidad

Mere possession of a prohibited drug constitutes prima facie evidence of knowledge or animus possidendi sufficient to convict an accused in the absence of any satisfactory explanation. The finding of illicit drugs in a house owned or occupied by the accused raises a presumption of knowledge and 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.

On 27 September 2008, the Naga City Police Intelligence Section received information that Leo Dela Trinidad y Oballes was involved in drug trafficking. After verifying the report through surveillance and observing suspected drug pushers visiting his residence, the police conducted two test-buys on 10 and 16 October 2008, both of which yielded marijuana sold by appellant. On 20 October 2008, the police applied for and obtained two search warrants—one for violation of Section 11, Article II of R.A. No. 9165 (illegal possession of dangerous drugs) and another for illegal possession of firearms and ammunition under P.D. No. 1866, as amended. The operation was coordinated with the Philippine Drug Enforcement Agency, and a briefing attended by mandatory witnesses was held before the warrants were served.

• The Police Operation: On 27 September 2008, the Naga City Police Intelligence Section received information that appellant was involved in drug trafficking. PSI Benigno Albao, Sr., after interviewing the informant, instructed SPO1 Feliciano Aguilar and SPO1 Fersebal Abrantes to conduct surveillance. The surveillance confirmed appellant’s identity and location, and the operatives observed suspected drug pushers visiting his residence. A test-buy on 10 October 2008 yielded marijuana cubes, dried leaves and fruiting tops worth ₱100.00. Another test-buy on 16 October 2008 produced one brick of dried marijuana leaves. The purchased marijuana was submitted to the Camarines Sur Police Provincial Office on 17 October 2008. On 20 October 2008, the police applied for two search warrants from RTC Branch 25, Naga City—one for illegal possession of dangerous drugs and another for illegal possession of firearms, as the asset had seen appellant with a gun tucked in his waist during the second test-buy.

• The Search and Seizure: Coordination with the PDEA was made, and a pre-operation report was submitted. A briefing was conducted at the Naga City Police Office on 21 October 2008 at 4:10 A.M., attended by the raiding team and the mandatory witnesses: DOJ representative Carlo Lamberto Tayo, media representative Roy Ranoco, Barangay Captain Jose Jacobo and Kagawad Eugene Froyalde. The briefing was photographed. At around 5:10 A.M., the team proceeded to appellant’s residence, accompanied by the witnesses. The operatives knocked, identified themselves, and informed appellant of the search warrants, reading their contents and apprising him of his constitutional rights. When asked to produce the items listed in the warrant, appellant voluntarily took from under his pillow: nine and a half bricks of suspected dried marijuana leaves sealed with packaging tape, two big bricks of suspected dried marijuana leaves sealed with packaging tape, four medium-sized cubes of suspected dried marijuana leaves in small transparent plastic sachets, and eighteen small cubes of suspected dried marijuana leaves in small transparent plastic sachets. Also found were seventy-seven empty transparent plastic sachets. SPO1 Aguilar placed his initials “FBA” on the items. No firearm was discovered. An inventory was conducted inside the house, and a certificate of inventory was prepared by SPO1 Louie Ordonez. The Certificate of Inventory and Certification of Orderly Search were signed by the witnesses in appellant’s presence. The entire process was photographed by PO2 Quintin Tusara.

• Laboratory Examination: After the seizure, appellant and the confiscated items were brought to the Naga City Police Station. The seized items were subsequently withdrawn for laboratory examination. SPO1 Aguilar submitted a request to the Camarines Sur Provincial Crime Laboratory, and P/Insp. Edsel Villalobos received the specimens bearing the “FBA” markings. P/Insp. Villalobos placed his own initials and signatures in blue markings to preserve integrity. Both initial and final test examinations yielded positive results for marijuana.

• Version of the Defense: Appellant claimed that in the early morning of 21 October 2008, someone knocked at his door and identified himself as the barangay captain; upon opening, many people entered, took pictures, and told him to stay aside. He was asked to bring out a gun and illegal drugs. He heard someone shout that they had found something near the table, but he could not see because the table was surrounded. He was later asked to sign a paper, was read the warrant, handcuffed, and brought to the police station. He maintained the drugs were planted.

• Denial and Frame-up: Petitioner contended that he had no knowledge of the illegal drugs found in his house, that they were planted by the police operatives, and that the trial court overlooked facts that would have altered the verdict.

• Breach of Chain of Custody: Petitioner argued that the corpus delicti was not clearly established because SPO1 Aguilar’s markings were not indicated in the certificate of inventory, the weight of the specimens was not stated in the inventory, and the markings were not indicated in the return of the search warrant. He maintained that the integrity of the dangerous drugs was not ensured and their identity not established with moral certainty.

• Sufficiency of Evidence: The prosecution maintained that all elements of illegal possession of dangerous drugs were proven beyond reasonable doubt. The testimonies of the apprehending officers and the laboratory chemist, coupled with the physical evidence, showed that appellant knowingly possessed the prohibited drugs without legal authority.

• Preservation of Integrity and Chain of Custody: The prosecution countered that the inventory and photograph requirements of Section 21 of R.A. No. 9165 were substantially complied with; the mandatory witnesses were present throughout, the items were marked at the scene and again by the forensic chemist, and the chain of custody remained unbroken.

• Proof of Possession: Whether the prosecution proved beyond reasonable doubt that appellant knowingly possessed the dangerous drugs absent any satisfactory explanation from the accused.

• Chain of Custody: Whether the integrity and identity of the seized drugs were established through an unbroken chain of custody, despite the absence of markings and weight from the certificate of inventory and the return of the search warrant.

• Proof of Possession: All elements of illegal possession of dangerous drugs under Section 11, Article II of R.A. No. 9165 were sufficiently proven. The prosecution established that appellant was in possession of the items identified as marijuana, that his possession was unauthorized by law, and that he freely and consciously possessed the drugs. The discovery of the contraband in appellant’s house raised the presumption of knowledge and possession, which standing alone would suffice for conviction. Appellant’s uncorroborated defenses of denial and frame-up—viewed with disfavor as self-serving and easily concocted—failed to rebut this presumption. Mere denial cannot outweigh the positive assertions of credible prosecution witnesses absent any showing of ill motive.

• Chain of Custody: The chain of custody was unbroken. Section 21(a) of the IRR of R.A. No. 9165 does not require that the certificate of inventory indicate the markings or the weight of the seized items; it sanctions substantial compliance with the procedure so long as the integrity and evidentiary value of the items are preserved. The prosecution proved that the mandatory witnesses from the DOJ, media, and local barangay officials were present during the briefing, the conduct of the search, and the inventory; the seized items were photographed and inventoried in appellant’s presence; SPO1 Aguilar marked the items with “FBA” at the scene; and P/Insp. Villalobos received the items with those markings and added his own markings for preservation. No evidence of tampering or bad faith was presented. The presumption of regularity in the performance of official duties therefore remained unrebutted.

• Prima Facie Evidence of Knowledge from Possession — Mere possession of a prohibited drug constitutes prima facie evidence of knowledge or animus possidendi sufficient to convict an accused in the absence of any satisfactory explanation. The finding of dangerous drugs in a house or building owned or occupied by a particular person raises a presumption of knowledge and possession, which alone may support a conviction. The accused bears the burden of rebutting this presumption with clear and convincing evidence.

• Constructive Possession — Under the Dangerous Drugs Act, possession includes both actual and constructive possession. Exclusive possession or control is not required; constructive possession exists when the drug is under the dominion and control of the accused or when the accused has the right to exercise dominion and control over the place where it is found, even if such right is shared with another.

• Substantial Compliance with Section 21, R.A. No. 9165 — Strict compliance with the inventory and photograph requirements of Section 21, paragraph 1, Article II of R.A. No. 9165 may not always be feasible under field conditions. Substantial compliance suffices provided the integrity and evidentiary value of the seized items are properly preserved. The IRR does not mandate that the certificate of inventory indicate the markings or the weight of the specimens. Non-compliance under justifiable grounds does not invalidate the seizure or custody of the items as long as the chain of custody remains unbroken and the corpus delicti is established with moral certainty.

• “Jurisprudence is consistent in that mere possession of a prohibited drug constitutes prima facie evidence of knowledge or animus possidendi sufficient to convict an accused in the absence of any satisfactory explanation.” — Articulates the presumption that anchored the Court’s finding of guilt.

• “It must be emphasized that the finding of illicit drugs and paraphernalia in a house or building owned or occupied by a particular person raises the presumption of knowledge and possession thereof which, standing alone, is sufficient to convict.” — Highlights the probative force of the discovery of contraband inside one’s residence.

• “Possession, under the law, includes not only actual possession, but also constructive possession. Actual possession exists when the drug is in the immediate 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.” — Defines the scope of possession for purposes of R.A. No. 9165.

• “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 properly preserved by the apprehending officers.” — Clarifies the degree of compliance expected under Section 21.

• People v. Lagman, 593 Phil. 617 (2008) — Followed. Established that illegal possession is mala prohibita and that the prosecution must prove animus possidendi; also defined constructive possession and affirmed that the discovery of contraband in premises occupied by the accused creates a presumption of knowledge and possession.

• People v. Pringas, G.R. No. 175928, 31 August 2007, 531 SCRA 828 — Followed. Recognized that strict compliance with Section 21 may not always be possible under field conditions and that the police cannot always attend to all procedural niceties; substantial compliance preserves the validity of the seizure.

• People v. Quiamanlon, G.R. No. 191198, 26 January 2011, 640 Phil. 697 — Followed. Enumerated the elements of illegal possession of dangerous drugs and reiterated that mere possession constitutes prima facie evidence of knowledge.

• People v. Ulama, G.R. No. 186530, 14 December 2011, 662 SCRA 599 — Followed. Held that the defenses of denial or frame-up are viewed with disfavor for being easily concocted and a common defense ploy in Dangerous Drugs Act prosecutions.

• Section 11, Article II, Republic Act No. 9165 (Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002) — Defines and penalizes illegal possession of dangerous drugs. Applied to convict appellant, as all elements were established.

• Section 21, paragraph 1, Article II, Republic Act No. 9165 — Mandates the immediate physical inventory and photograph of seized drugs in the presence of the accused, a media representative, a DOJ representative, and any elected public official. Held substantially complied with, as the required witnesses were present and the inventory was conducted at the place of seizure.

• Section 21(a), Article II, Implementing Rules and Regulations of R.A. No. 9165 — Elaborates on the procedure and provides that non-compliance under justifiable grounds does not render void the seizure and custody of the items as long as the integrity and evidentiary value are preserved. Applied to reject appellant’s arguments regarding the absence of markings and weight on the inventory.

Presbitero J. Velasco, Jr., Teresita J. Leonardo-De Castro (Acting Chairperson), Lucas P. Bersamin, Estela M. Perlas-Bernabe.