People vs. Obias, Jr.

A search warrant validly and lawfully issued does not provide unbridled freedom to peace officers in implementing it; the search must be made in the presence of the lawful occupant or, in his absence, two witnesses of sufficient age and discretion residing in the same locality, and the order of preference cannot be disregarded, interchanged, or intercalated. Constructive possession of dangerous drugs 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 was found, and exclusive possession or control is not necessary.

The National Bureau of Investigation (NBI) Legaspi District Office conducted surveillance and test buy operations on a certain Boboy Obias who was dealing with shabu at his rest house and cock farm situated at Diamond Street, Villa Grande Homes Subdivision, Concepcion Grande, Naga City. Pursuant to these operations, the NBI applied for and secured Search Warrant Nos. 2008-021 and 2008-022 dated 11 September 2008 from Executive Judge Jaime E. Contreras to search the premises and seize shabu and drug paraphernalia. The search was conducted with assistance from the Philippine National Police (PNP) and the Philippine Drug Enforcement Agency (PDEA).

The NBI Legaspi District Office conducted surveillance and test buy operations on Siegfredo Obias, Jr. y Arroyo a.k.a. "Boboy," who was dealing with shabu at his rest house and cock farm situated at Diamond Street, Villa Grande Homes Subdivision, Concepcion Grande, Naga City. The NBI secured Search Warrant Nos. 2008-021 and 2008-022 dated 11 September 2008 from Executive Judge Jaime E. Contreras to search the premises and seize shabu and drug paraphernalia.

At around 9:30 P.M. of 13 September 2008, with assistance from the PNP and PDEA, NBI agents led by Special Investigator III Felipe Jessie Jimenez, Jr. proceeded to the address to serve the two search warrants. The team invited Barangay Chairman Elmer Baldemoro, barangay tanods, media reporters from ABS-CBN Naga City, GMA 7 Network and Weekly Digest, and Assistant City Prosecutors Joveliza P. Soriano and Cyril Manzano. The team first secured the perimeter area and compound, then served the warrants on the appellant. All persons inside the premises were gathered in the receiving area of the rest house, while the search party brought along the appellant during the conduct of the search.

In the course of the search, they found several plastic sachets of white crystalline substance as well as assorted drug paraphernalia in certain portions of the premises: inside a bedroom in the elevated portion, inside a makeshift bedroom located under the house ("sirong"), inside the kitchen, and several particles of white crystalline substance on the grass near the cock shelter. The search was videotaped and photographed. Sometime later, after the light switch was located, another search was conducted in the kitchen area where they found hidden under a stove a cigarette pack colored green, the contents of which were later marked as 'MBL-ITEM A-30' and series.

The seized items were photographed, sealed in plastic, and marked by Special Investigator IV Manuel Mario B. Lanoza with his initials 'MBL' in the presence of the appellant and other members of the search party. Special Investigator III Rowan Victor M. Estrellano prepared the Inventory Sheets of the seized items which were signed by Barangay Chairman Baldemoro, the three media representatives, and ACP Soriano as representative of the Department of Justice. However, the appellant refused to sign the inventory sheets and did not acknowledge receipt of a copy of the search warrants.

The NBI submitted a return to the issuing court, presenting the appellant and the seized items. The items were withdrawn for chemical examination at the crime laboratory. Upon receipt of the specimens at 10:00 A.M. of 14 September 2008, Forensic Chemist P/Insp. Edsel Villalobos of the PNP Camarines Sur Provincial Crime Laboratory Office examined the submitted specimens and issued Chemistry Report D-44-2008 certifying that the white crystalline substances proved positive for methamphetamine hydrochloride or shabu.

The appellant pleaded not guilty when arraigned. He denied the accusations, claiming that the shabu and drug paraphernalia were found inside the rooms occupied by his two employees, Boyet and Tabor Alejandria, who were cock breeders/trainers. He averred that he just arrived at the rest house when the search party suddenly entered the compound and fired their guns. He disputed that shabu was found inside the kitchen since he and his companions were herded at the receiving area of the house during the search.

• Illegality of the Search: The appellant contended that the search was illegally and irregularly conducted and violative of his constitutional rights, arguing that members of the raiding team were freely roaming around the house and the surrounding yard, unaccompanied by any of the required witnesses, in violation of the spirit and letter of the law as enunciated in Quintero vs. National Bureau of Investigation.
• Absence During Search: The appellant asserted that the search was conducted without his presence since he was forced to stay inside the receiving area.
• Lack of Possession: The appellant disclaimed ownership of the place searched, alleging that the seized illegal items were found not in his actual possession but inside the bedroom of the rest house occupied by Boyet and Tabor Alejandria.

• Validity of the Search: The prosecution presented evidence that the search was conducted in accordance with Section 8 of Rule 126 of the Rules of Court, with all prosecution witnesses attesting that the appellant personally witnessed the search.
• Control and Dominion: The prosecution established that as owner of the cock farm and the rest house, the appellant clearly had full control and dominion over the place where the seized items were recovered.
• Chain of Custody: The prosecution maintained that the NBI had adopted lawful means and methods in the implementation of the search warrants and that there was faithful observance of the chain of custody requirement under RA 9165.

• Validity of the Search: Whether the search was illegally and irregularly conducted in violation of the appellant's constitutional rights.
• Presence of the Accused: Whether the search was conducted without the presence of the appellant.
• Constructive Possession: Whether the appellant had constructive possession of the seized drugs and paraphernalia found in the premises he owned.
• Chain of Custody: Whether the integrity and evidentiary value of the seized items were preserved under the chain of custody rule.

• Validity of the Search: No. The search was validly conducted. While some members of the raiding team were roaming around the house and its surroundings, the appellant failed to present evidence that they were searching for incriminating evidence; the evidence showed they were patrolling the area to secure it against possible escape of persons earlier rounded up. The actual search did not commence until after the arrival of Barangay Captain Baldemoro, the media representatives, and Assistant City Prosecutor Joveliza P. Soriano.
• Presence of the Accused: No. The appellant's averment that the search was not made in his presence has no basis and cannot prevail over the positive, straightforward, and consistent testimonies of the prosecution witnesses that the search was done in the presence of the appellant himself. The appellant himself admitted that he accompanied the search team throughout the conduct of the search.
• Constructive Possession: Yes. Constructive possession was established. As owner of the cock farm and the rest house, the appellant clearly had full control and dominion over all the rooms located therein, including the bedroom where the seized items were located. The finding of illicit drugs and paraphernalia in a house owned or occupied by a particular person raises the presumption of knowledge and possession thereof which, standing alone, is sufficient to convict.
• Chain of Custody: Yes. The mandatory requirement of the presence of representatives from the media and the DOJ and any elected public official during the physical inventory and photography was complied with, as evidenced by their signatures on the Inventory of Seized Property and the video footages taken during the inventory.

• Validity of the Search: The Court emphasized that a search warrant validly and lawfully issued by a competent authority does not provide unbridled freedom to the peace officer in the manner of implementing the same. Section 8, Rule 126 of the Rules of Court requires that 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. The order of preference cannot be disregarded, interchanged, or intercalated. In this case, the actual search did not commence until after the arrival of the required witnesses, and the roaming of some team members was for security purposes, not for searching.
• Presence of the Accused: The Court found that the appellant's claim that the search was not conducted in his presence had no basis. All prosecution witnesses consistently attested that the appellant personally witnessed the search, as he was brought along by the search party. This was confirmed implicitly by the appellant himself, who testified that he "was forced" to go with the team, and was proven by photographs and video footages taken during the search.
• Constructive Possession: The Court applied the doctrine of constructive possession, which 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 was 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. 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. The appellant failed to rebut this presumption with sufficient evidence.
• Chain of Custody: The Court found that the integrity and evidentiary value of the seized items had been preserved under the chain of custody rule. The mandatory requirement of the presence of representatives from the media and the DOJ and any elected public official during the physical inventory and photography was complied with, as evidenced by their signatures on the Inventory of Seized Property and the video footages taken during the inventory. The inconsistencies alluded to by the appellant referred only to minor details that are irrelevant to the elements of the crimes.

• 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 was 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. 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.
• Witness Requirement in Search — Section 8, Rule 126 of the Rules of Court requires that 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. The order of preference cannot be disregarded, interchanged, or intercalated.
• Elements of Illegal Possession of Dangerous Drugs — The elements under Section 11, Article II of RA 9165 are: (1) possession by the accused of an item or object identified to be a prohibited drug; (2) the possession is not authorized by law; and (3) the free and conscious possession of the drug by the accused.
• Elements of Illegal Possession of Drug Paraphernalia — The elements under Section 12, Article II of RA 9165 are: (1) possession or control by the accused of any equipment, apparatus or other paraphernalia fit or intended for smoking, consuming, administering, injecting, ingesting or introducing any dangerous drug into the body; and (2) such possession is not authorized by law.

• "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." — This quotation from Article III, Section 2 of the Constitution states the fundamental rule on searches and seizures, which the Court cited as the starting point of its analysis on the validity of the search.
• "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 [was] 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." — This passage defines the doctrine of constructive possession, which was the basis for affirming the appellant's conviction despite his claim that the drugs belonged to his employees.
• "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." — This statement establishes the presumption applied by the Court, which the appellant failed to rebut, leading to the affirmation of his conviction.

• Quintero vs. National Bureau of Investigation, 245 Phil. 414 (1988) — Cited by the appellant to support his argument that the search was illegally conducted because the raiding team members were roaming unaccompanied by required witnesses; the Court distinguished the case, finding no evidence of illegal searching.
• Polio vs. Chairperson Constantino-David, 675 Phil. 225, 248 (2011) — Cited for the proposition that the Constitution does not prohibit all searches and seizures but only those which are "unreasonable."
• People vs. De la Trinidad, 742 Phil. 347, 357-358 (2014) — Cited for the definition of actual and constructive possession in drug cases.
• People vs. Logman, 593 Phil. 617, 625-626 (2008) — Cited for the presumption of knowledge and possession arising from the finding of illicit drugs in a house or building owned or occupied by a particular person.
• People vs. Fang, 739 Phil. 565, 576 (2014) — Cited for the rule that inconsistencies in the testimony of witnesses referring only to minor details and collateral matters do not affect the substance of their declaration, their veracity, or the weight of their testimony.
• People vs. Dimaano, 780 Phil. 586, 609 (2016) — Cited for the rule that witnesses are not expected to remember every single detail of an incident with perfect or total recall.
• Zalameda vs. People, 614 Phil. 710, 727 (2009) — Cited for the elements of illegal possession of dangerous drugs and illegal possession of drug paraphernalia.
• People vs. Clarite, 682 Phil. 289, 296 (2012) — Cited for the rule that findings of fact of the trial court, particularly when affirmed by the Court of Appeals, are binding upon the Supreme Court, save only for certain compelling reasons.

• Article III, Section 2, 1987 Constitution — Provides the right of the people to be secure against unreasonable searches and seizures and requires probable cause determined personally by a judge for the issuance of search warrants. The Court cited this provision as the fundamental basis for the validity of searches.
• Article III, Section 3(2), 1987 Constitution — Provides that any evidence obtained in violation of the search and seizure provision shall be inadmissible for any purpose in any proceeding. The Court cited this as a safeguard from unreasonable searches and seizures.
• Section 8, Rule 126, Rules of Court — Requires that 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. The Court applied this provision to determine the validity of the search.
• Section 11, Article II, RA 9165 — Defines and penalizes illegal possession of dangerous drugs. The Court applied this provision to affirm the conviction and the penalty imposed.
• Section 12, Article II, RA 9165 — Defines and penalizes illegal possession of drug paraphernalia. The Court applied this provision to affirm the conviction and the penalty imposed.
• Section 21(a), Article II, Implementing Rules and Regulations of RA 9165 — Governs the chain of custody requirement for seized drugs. The Court found that the mandatory requirement of the presence of representatives from the media and the DOJ and any elected public official during the physical inventory and photography was complied with.

Bersamin, C.J., Gesmundo, and Carandang, JJ., concurred. Peralta, J., wrote a separate concurring opinion, which the Court cited for the proposition that "any period in excess of twenty (20) years [and one (1) day] is within the range of the penalty" for illegal possession of dangerous drugs.