Quelnan vs. People

A search warrant that particularly describes the place to be searched is not invalidated by the omission or mistake in naming the owner or occupant; and a person found in constructive possession of dangerous drugs in that place is caught in flagrante delicto and may be arrested without warrant.

Andy Quelnan y Quino was the registered owner of Unit 615, Cityland Condominium, South Superhighway, Makati City, which he leased to Sung Kok Lee beginning May 1996; Quelnan resided at Legaspi Tower 300, 2600 Roxas Boulevard, Manila. The charge against him arose under Section 16, Article III of Republic Act No. 6425, as amended, which penalizes possession of regulated drugs. Search warrant enforcement in the case was governed by Section 4, Rule 126 of the Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure, which requires probable cause in connection with one specific offense and a particular description of the place to be searched and the things to be seized.

On 27 August 1996, a team from the Police Assistance and Reaction Against Crime of the Department of Interior and Local Government, composed of Chief Inspector Carlos Acosta, SPO4 Isagani Ilas, SPO2 Manubay, SPO2 Sanggalang, SPO2 Teodoro Sinag, SPO2 Mario Magno, SPO2 de Leon, SPO2 Cecil Fajardo, SPO3 Marcelo Alcancia, SPO3 Dennis Zarcal, and PO1 Eraldo Lectura, was formed to implement a search warrant issued by the Regional Trial Court of Manila on 26 August 1996. At around 3:00 p.m., the team proceeded to Cityland Condominium in South Superhighway, Makati. Upon arrival, they went to the Security Office to seek assistance; Security Officer Celedonio Punsaran accompanied them to Unit 615. When they knocked, a male person naked from the waist up opened the door; he was later identified as petitioner Andy Quelnan y Quino. SPO2 Sinag presented the search warrant to him. Upon entry, the police searched the unit, which was a small room with a plywood divider separating the sala from the bedroom. In the presence of petitioner and Punsaran, the group found on top of the bedroom table three transparent plastic sachets containing white crystalline substances later confirmed by the National Bureau of Investigation forensic chemist as shabu, plastic tubings, weighing scales, an improvised burner, and empty transparent plastic sachets. They prepared a receipt of the properties seized and an Affidavit of Orderly Search allegedly signed by petitioner in their presence and that of Punsaran. The group also went to Unit 418 of the same building to serve the warrant, but found no occupant. Petitioner was brought to the PARAC office for investigation, and the evidence was brought to the NBI; that same day, NBI Forensic Chemist Loreto F. Bravo issued a certification that the specimen yielded positive for methamphetamine hydrochloride. The following day, the Arrest Report and Joint Affidavit of Apprehension were executed by the police operatives, leading to petitioner's arrest and charging for violation of Section 16, Article III of Republic Act No. 6425.

Petitioner testified that he is a resident of 150 Legaspi Tower 300, 2600 Roxas Boulevard, Manila, and the registered owner of Unit 615, which he leased to Sung Kok Lee beginning May 1996. On 27 August 1996, around 3:00 p.m., he went to Unit 615 to collect rental from Lee. Upon knocking, the maid greeted him and told him to wait for Lee inside while she went out to buy refreshments. After a while, he heard knocking and opened the door; he saw around 15 to 20 armed men who suddenly barged into the room. The officer in charge asked for a certain Bernard Kim, and petitioner introduced himself as the owner of the condominium unit. The police operatives searched the house for the next half hour while petitioner waited in the sala. Petitioner was forced to sign some documents at gunpoint, then handcuffed and brought to the PARAC office. Two days later, he was brought to the Makati Prosecutor's Office for inquest, and a case was subsequently filed against him.

Luis Alvarez, administrator of Cityland Condominium, testified that Lee was the actual occupant of Unit 615 at the time petitioner was arrested. Celso Fiesta, petitioner's driver, stated that petitioner resides at Legaspi Tower; on 27 August 1996, he dropped petitioner off at Cityland Condominium between 1:00 and 2:00 p.m.; two and a half hours later, he returned to pick him up; as he was about to park, somebody poked a gun at him and introduced himself as PARAC; Fiesta was ordered out of the car, the PARAC team searched the vehicle, found a gun, and brought Fiesta to the DILG; he was released the following day.

The RTC found the fact of possession clearly and convincingly established by the prosecution: the three plastic sachets containing 27.7458 grams of methamphetamine hydrochloride and paraphernalia were seized from the accused; SPO4 Ilas and SPO2 Sinag testified they were found on top of a table in a room of Unit 615 in the afternoon of 27 August 1996 when only the accused was inside. The RTC relied on the clear, straightforward, and candid testimonies of the prosecution witnesses, considered them public officers with no showing of ill-will or bad faith, and applied the presumption of regularity in the performance of their functions. The Court of Appeals pointed out that possession may be actual or constructive; although the shabu was not found on petitioner's person but in the bedroom, he was deemed in possession since he was the only person in the premises, and his half-naked state indicated extreme familiarity and gave the impression of his being at home in the premises, of which he was the registered owner.

• Improper Enforcement / Naming of Occupant: Petitioner argued that the search warrant was improperly enforced because the police knew he was not the subject of the warrant but proceeded with the search and his arrest; the Court of Appeals erred in holding that a warrant for a specifically described premises is not invalidated by omission of the owner or occupant's name, since the doctrine applies only where the warrant does not indicate with certainty the owner or occupant, and the subject warrant clearly named Kim as the person subject thereof.
• No Flagrante Delicto / No Possession: Petitioner maintained that his apprehension could not be considered in flagrante delicto because he was not in possession of the forbidden drug; he was in the leased premises to collect rentals, the shabu was found on top of the table inside the bedroom and not within his immediate location, and his half-naked state was explained by his long bond of friendship with Lee, which made him treat Lee's home like his own.
• Lease and Residence: Petitioner presented testimonies that he was the owner and lessor of Unit 615 and resided in Legaspi Tower, and that Lee was the actual occupant, to show he did not have possession or control of the drug.

• Constructive Possession: The Solicitor General maintained that petitioner was in constructive possession of the shabu, citing circumstances showing control and dominion: the shabu was found on top of a table in Unit 615 when and where only petitioner was present; petitioner introduced himself as owner; he admitted being there to collect rentals; he was found naked from the waist up; and Unit 615 was a studio unit with a divider and sala, with no room with a door to be closed and locked that could prevent free access to the shabu.
• Valid Warrantless Arrest: The prosecution proffered that petitioner was caught in flagrante delicto in possession of the subject shabu, justifying his warrantless arrest.
• Affirmance of Conviction: The Solicitor General supported the appellate court's ruling and argued that petitioner's actuations showed control and dominion over the drug.

• Validity of Search Warrant Enforcement: Whether the search warrant was properly enforced despite petitioner not being named as the person subject thereof.
• Validity of Warrantless Arrest: Whether petitioner was validly arrested without warrant on the ground that he was caught in flagrante delicto in possession of shabu.
• Imposable Penalty: Whether the penalty imposed by the lower courts for possession of 27.7458 grams of shabu under Section 16, Article III of Republic Act No. 6425, as amended, is correct.

• Validity of Search Warrant Enforcement: Yes. The search warrant was properly enforced; Section 4, Rule 126 of the Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure does not require the warrant to name the occupant of the described premises, and the warrant sufficiently described Unit 615 as the place to be searched.
• Validity of Warrantless Arrest: Yes. Petitioner was caught in flagrante delicto; the shabu was in his constructive possession, and the police were obligated to apprehend him even without a warrant of arrest.
• Imposable Penalty: No. The lower courts erred; under Section 16, Article III of Republic Act No. 6425, as amended, possession of shabu less than 200 grams is punishable by prision correccional, and the Indeterminate Sentence Law fixes the modified term.

• Validity of Search Warrant Enforcement: Section 4, Rule 126 of the Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure requires probable cause in connection with one specific offense, determined personally by the judge after examination under oath or affirmation of the complainant and witnesses, and a particular description of the place to be searched and the things to be seized. Neither this rule nor any other provision requires the search warrant to name the person who occupies the described premises. In Uy vs. Bureau of Internal Revenue, the Court ruled that where a search warrant is issued for the search of specifically described premises only and not for the search of a person, failure to name the owner or occupant in the affidavit and warrant does not invalidate the warrant; an incorrect name is not a fatal defect if the legal description of the premises is otherwise correct so that no discretion is left to the officer making the search as to the place to be searched. The search warrant here ordered an immediate search of the premises and seizure of shabu, and directed the officers to bring persons to be dealt with as the law may direct. Although petitioner was not the person named in the warrant, his warrantless arrest was necessitated by his being caught in flagrante delicto; the omission of his name was immaterial.
• Validity of Warrantless Arrest: In every prosecution for illegal possession of shabu, the essential elements are: (a) the accused is found in possession of a regulated drug; (b) the person is not authorized by law or duly constituted authorities; and (c) the accused has knowledge that the drug is a regulated drug. The prosecution must also prove intent to possess. Possession includes actual and constructive possession. Actual possession exists when the drug is in the immediate physical possession or control of the accused; 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; possession may be proved by direct or circumstantial evidence and any reasonable inference drawn therefrom. Knowledge of the existence and character of the drug may be presumed from the fact that the dangerous drug is in the house or place over which the accused has control or dominion, absent any satisfactory explanation. Petitioner's control and dominion over the shabu were sufficiently established by his questionable presence in Unit 615. His explanation that he went to Lee's unit to collect rentals and was left by the maid while she bought refreshments was highly suspicious; the maid never returned and did not corroborate him. The testimonies that he owned and leased Unit 615 and resided in Legaspi Tower did not prove he lacked access and control over the premises. His overt act of getting half-naked while opening the door established intimate familiarity with and over his surroundings. His claim of a long bond of friendship with Lee was belied by the building administrator's testimony that Lee was a mere walk-in applicant who began renting Unit 615 only on 1 May 1996, barely three months before the apprehension. Petitioner himself affirmed that he allowed Lee, whom he barely knew, to occupy the unit with only one month rental deposit. The lease contract was undated and unnotarized; the building administrator could not remember when it was executed; and the rentals were payable at the second week of each month, inconsistent with petitioner's effort to collect payment on 27 August 1996. The unit was a small room with a plywood divider between the sala and bedroom; with petitioner seemingly comfortable in moving about, the shabu and paraphernalia could not have escaped his vision. The police operatives—Inspector Acosta, SPO4 Ilas, and SPO1 Teodoro Sinag—positively identified petitioner as the occupant of Unit 615 at the time of the search and testified that he was caught in flagrante delicto when the shabu was found in his constructive possession. The trial court placed great weight on their testimonies and accorded the presumption of regularity in the performance of their functions. Factual findings of the trial court, especially on credibility, deserve respect absent glaring errors, gross misapprehension of facts, or speculative, arbitrary, and unsupported conclusions; no recognized exception was shown. Petitioner's unlawful possession was established by his presence in Unit 615 at the time of arrest, his representation that he was the owner, his half-naked state, and the location of the shabu on a table beside the bed within sight. Having caught petitioner in flagrante delicto, the police operatives were obligated to apprehend him even without a warrant of arrest.
• Imposable Penalty: Section 16, Article III of Republic Act No. 6425, as amended, provides that if the quantity of the regulated drug involved, in this case shabu, is less than 200 grams, the penalty to be imposed ranges from prision correccional to reclusion perpetua. Since petitioner was charged with possession of 27.7458 grams of shabu, the imposable penalty is prision correccional. Applying the Indeterminate Sentence Law, the petitioner is sentenced to an indeterminate penalty ranging from four months and one day of arresto mayor in its medium period as minimum to three years of prision correccional in its medium period as maximum. Both lower courts erred in the penalties they imposed.

• Search Warrant Need Not Name Occupant — Where a search warrant is issued for the search of specifically described premises only and not for the search of a person, the failure to name the owner or occupant of such property in the affidavit and search warrant does not invalidate the warrant; where the name of the owner of the premises sought to be searched is incorrectly inserted, it is not a fatal defect if the legal description of the premises is otherwise correct so that no discretion is left to the officer making the search as to the place to be searched. In this case, the doctrine was applied to uphold the warrant naming Bernard Lim/Kim rather than petitioner, because the warrant described Unit 615.
• Constructive Possession of Dangerous Drugs — Possession under the Dangerous Drugs Act includes actual and constructive possession. Actual possession exists when the drug is in the immediate physical possession or control of the accused; 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. Possession may be proved by direct or circumstantial evidence and any reasonable inference drawn therefrom. Knowledge of the existence and character of the drug may be presumed from the fact that the drug is in the house or place over which the accused has control or dominion, absent satisfactory explanation. The doctrine was applied to find petitioner in constructive possession of the shabu found on the table in Unit 615.
• Warrantless Arrest In Flagrante Delicto — A person caught in flagrante delicto in possession of dangerous drugs may be arrested without a warrant; the police are obligated to apprehend him even without a warrant of arrest. The doctrine was applied after petitioner was found in constructive possession of the shabu during the search.
• Credibility and Conclusiveness of Trial Court Findings — Factual findings of the trial court, especially those revolving on the credibility of witnesses, deserve respect when no glaring errors bordering on gross misapprehension of facts or speculative, arbitrary, and unsupported conclusions can be gleaned; the evaluation of credibility is best undertaken by the trial court because of its unique opportunity to observe the witnesses' deportment, demeanor, conduct, and attitude under examination. No recognized exception was found, and the lower courts' factual findings were upheld.
• Penalty for Possession of Shabu Under RA 6425 — Under Section 16, Article III of Republic Act No. 6425, as amended, if the quantity of shabu is less than 200 grams, the penalty ranges from prision correccional to reclusion perpetua; for 27.7458 grams, the imposable penalty is prision correccional. The Indeterminate Sentence Law fixes the minimum and maximum terms. The doctrine was applied to modify the penalty.

• "Nowhere in said rule or any other provision in the Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure is it required that the search warrant must name the person who occupies the described premises." — This states the Court's ratio on the validity of the search warrant despite petitioner not being named.
• "In Uy v. Bureau of Internal Revenue, the Court has definitively ruled that where the search warrant is issued for the search of specifically described premises only and not for the search of a person, the failure to name the owner or occupant of such property in the affidavit and search warrant does not invalidate the warrant; and where the name of the owner of the premises sought to be searched is incorrectly inserted in the search warrant, it is not a fatal defect if the legal description of the premises to be searched is otherwise correct so that no discretion is left to the officer making the search as to the place to be searched." — This is the canonical formulation of the rule on search warrants describing premises rather than persons.
• "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." — This defines the doctrine of constructive possession that supported the conviction.
• "Having caught petitioner in flagrante delicto, the police operatives are obligated to apprehend him even without a warrant of arrest." — This states the basis for the warrantless arrest.

• Uy vs. Bureau of Internal Revenue, 397 Phil. 892, 908-909 (2000) — Controlling precedent; relied on to hold that failure to name the owner or occupant, or an incorrect name, in a search warrant for specifically described premises does not invalidate the warrant if the legal description is correct.
• Abuan vs. People, G.R. No. 168773, 27 October 2006, 505 SCRA 799; People vs. Torres, G.R. No. 170837, 12 September 2006, 501 SCRA 591, 610 — Cited for the essential elements of illegal possession of shabu.
• People vs. Tira, G.R. No. 139615, 28 May 2004, 430 SCRA 134, 152, citing People vs. Ramos, 186 SCRA 184 (1990) — Cited for constructive possession, the presumption of knowledge from dominion and control over the place where the drug is found, and the penalty computation for shabu quantities.
• People vs. Miguel, G.R. No. 173795, 4 April 2007 — Cited on the respect accorded to trial court findings on witness credibility.
• Fuentes vs. Court of Appeals, 335 Phil. 1163, 1168 (1997); Geronimo vs. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 105540, 5 July 1993, 224 SCRA 494, 498-499; Angelo vs. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 83392, 26 June 1992, 210 SCRA 402 — Cited for the recognized exceptions to the conclusiveness of factual findings of trial and appellate courts; none was found applicable.

• Section 16, Article III, Republic Act No. 6425, as amended (Dangerous Drugs Act of 1972) — Penalizes possession of regulated drugs. For shabu in a quantity less than 200 grams, the penalty ranges from prision correccional to reclusion perpetua. Because petitioner possessed 27.7458 grams, the Court applied prision correccional.
• Section 4, Rule 126, Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure — Requires probable cause in connection with one specific offense, determined personally by the judge after examination under oath or affirmation of the complainant and witnesses, and a particular description of the place to be searched and the things to be seized. The Court held it does not require naming the occupant of the described premises.
• Indeterminate Sentence Law — Applied to fix the minimum and maximum terms of the imprisonment after the penalty was determined to be prision correccional.

Antonio T. Carpio; Conchita Carpio Morales; Presbitero J. Velasco, Jr. Leonardo A. Quisumbing was on official leave.