Topic: Search Warrants, search and Seizures, Dangerous Drugs Act, Illegal Possession of Shabu

Ruben Del Castillo @Boy Castillo, petitioner vs. People of the Philippines, respondent
GR No. 185128
January 30, 2012

Peralta, J.

Facts: This is a petition of for review on certiorari under rule 45 of petitioner assailing the decision of the CA
which the RTC also affirmed. Finding petitioner guilty beyond reasonable doubt of violation of Section 16, Art.
III of Republic Act (RA) 6425.

According to the prosecution: Petitioner was engaged in the selling of shabu, police officers after conducting a
surveillance and test-buy operation of the house of petitioner secured a warrant of arrest from the RTC. The
same police go back to petitioner’s house to serve the warrant however upon arrival someone shouted “raid”
causing them to immediately disembark and went directly to the subject house. They went to the second floor of
the 2-story house where the petitioner was staying but was instead meted by his wife which they informed her
of the search warrant.

One of the police claimed that he saw petitioner run towards the Nipa hut in front of the house and chased him
but not able to catch him due to the unfamiliarity of the entrance and exits of the house. The said police man
(SPO3 Masnayon) requested to get the assistance of the barangay tanod and in the presence of the latter together
with Nelson Gonzaldo and the elder sister of petitioner search the Nipa Hut from which the barangay tanod
found was able to confiscate 4 plastic packs containing white crystalline substance.

Meanwhile, according to the defense: On the same day at 3 o’clock in the afternoon petitioner was installing the
electrical wirings and air conditioning units of the Four Seasons Canteen and Beauty Parlor at Wacky Bldg.
Cabancalan, Cebu. And was able to finish the job around 6pm and was engaged to a conversation with owner
and was able to go home around 8:30 to 9 pm. It was then petitioner learned from his wife that the police
operative searched his house and found in the Nipa hut white particles which was owned by his older brother
and was used as a storage place by his father.

After the trial the RTC found petitioner guilty beyond reasonable doubt. Aggrieved petitioner appealed his case
with the CA but the latter affirmed the decision of the RTC.

The motion for reconsideration of petitioner was denied by the CA.

Issue:
1. WON the CA erred in its application of the provisions of the constitution the rules of court and
established
jurisprudence in the validity of the search warrant;

2. WON the CA erred in ruling that the four (4) packs of white crystalline powder allegedly found on the
floor of the nipa hut or structure are admissible in evidence against the petitioner, not only because the
said court simply presumed that it was used by the petitioner or that the petitioner ran to it for cover
when the searching team arrived at his residence, but also, presuming that the said nipa hut or structure
was indeed used by the petitioner and the four (4) packs of white crystalline powder were found thereat.
the subject four (4) packs of white crystalline powder are fruits of the poisonous tree;
 3. WON the CA erred in its application of the element of “possession” as against the petitioner, as it was in
violation of the established jurisprudence on the matter. Had the said court properly applied the element
in question, it could have been assailed that the same had not been proven.

Ruling:
1. No. The CA did not err in its application of the provision. The Requisites of a search warrant are as
follows:
1. Probable cause is present;
2. Such probable cause must be determined personally by the judge;
3. The judge must examine, in writing and under oath or affirmation, the complaint and the witnesses he
or she may produce;
4. The applicant and the witnesses testify on the facts personally known to them; and
5. The warrant specifically describes the place to be searched and the things to be seized.

The above requisites are present in this case, further a probable cause for a search warrant leads a
reasonably discreet and prudent man to believe that an offense has been committed and that the objects
sought in connection with the offense are in the place sought to be searched. It demands more than a
bare suspicion and requires the determining judge to consider the totality of the circumstances made
known to him. A magistrate’s determination of probable cause for the issuance of a search warrant is
paid great deference by the reviewing court, as long as there was substantial basis which in this case is
present.

Note: Substantial basis means that the questions of the examining judge brought out such facts and circumstances as would
lead a reasonably discreet and prudent man to believe that an offense has been committed, and the objects in connection with
the offense sought to be seized are in the place sought to be searched.

2. Yes. The CA err in its decision. Art. 152 of the RPC defines persons in authority and agents of persons
in authority as: “any person directly vested with jurisdiction, whether as an individual or as a member of some court or
governmental corporation, board or commission, shall be deemed a person in authority. A barangay captain and a barangay
chairman shall also be deemed a person in authority. A person who, by direct provision of law or by election or by
appointment by competent authority, is charged with the maintenance of public order and the protection and security of
life and property, such as barrio councilman, barrio policeman and barangay leader, and any person who comes to the
aid of persons in authority, shall be deemed an agent of a person in authority.” Further The Local Government
Code also provides in its Sec. 388 “Persons in Authority.—For purposes of the Revised Penal Code, the punong
barangay, sangguniang barangay members, and members of the lupong tagapamayapa in each barangay shall be deemed as
persons in authority in their jurisdictions, while other barangay officials and members who may be designated by law or
ordinance and charged with the maintenance of public order, protection and security of life and property, or the
maintenance of a desirable and balanced environment, and any barangay member who comes to the aid of persons in
authority, shall be deemed agents of persons in authority.” In this case, it was established that the police who
affected the search warrant sought the assistance of the Branggay Tanod the same barangay tanod
therefore acted as agents of persons in authority during the conduct of the search. Thus, the search
conducted was unreasonable and
the confiscated items are inadmissible in evidence

3. Yes. The CA err in its application of the element of possession. In the case of People vs. Tria the court
explained the concept of possession of regulated drugs: Possession under the law includes not only actual
possession, but also constructive possession. Actual possession exists when the drugs is ion 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.

Further, it is not necessary that the property to be searched or seized should be owned by the person
against whom the search warrant is issued, there must be sufficient showing that the property is under
the appellant’s control or possession.
In this case, The CA, in its Decision, referred to the possession of regulated drugs by the petitioner as a
constructive one. 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. The
records are void of any evidence to show that petitioner owns the nipa hut in question nor was it
established that he used the said structure as a shop. The RTC, as well as the CA, merely presumed that
petitioner used the said structure due to the presence of electrical materials, the petitioner being an
electrician by profession. The prosecution must prove that the petitioner had knowledge of the existence
and presence of the drugs in the place under his control and dominion and the character of the drugs.
Failure to prove that the nipa hut was under petitioner’s control and dominion, there casts a reasonable
doubt as to his guilt.