CRIMINAL LAW II CASE DIGEST/ PEOPLE V. BATOON, G.R. No. 184599, NOVEMBER 24, 2010

PEOPLE V. BATOON,

G.R. No. 184599, NOVEMBER 24, 2010

TOPIC/DOCTRINE

For conviction of illegal possession of a prohibited drug to lie, the following elements must be established: (1) the accused was in possession of an item or an object identified to be a prohibited or regulated drug; (2) such possession is not authorized by law; and (3) the accused was freely and consciously aware of being in possession of the drug. 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.

FACTS

Drugs seized from appellants were properly identified before the trial court. As correctly appreciated by the trial and appellate courts, a legitimate buy-bust operation led to the arrest of accused-appellants. During the police operation, PO2 Vicente received from Melchor a sachet containing the drugs. On the other hand, PO1 Cabotaje seized from Teddy three sachets, also containing drugs. PO2 Vicente and PO1 Cabotaje marked and separately prepared the certification of the seized items. Thereafter, they personally turned over the items to the crime laboratory for examination. The police chemist, P/Insp. Laya II, tested the marked sachets, which turned out positive for methamphetamine hydrochloride. Finally, during trial, the same marked sachets were identified by PO2 Vicente and PO1 Cabotaje.

In this case, although the three sachets containing shabu were found solely in the possession of Teddy, it was evident that Melchor had knowledge of its existence. Moreover, as correctly found by the CA, Melchor had easy access to the shabu, because they conspired to engage in the illegal business of drugs.

ISSUE

Is Exclusive possession or control necessary in illegal possession of dangerous drugs?

RULING

No.

The court held that for conviction of illegal possession of a prohibited drug to lie, the following elements must be established: (1) the accused was in possession of an item or an object identified to be a prohibited or regulated drug; (2) such possession is not authorized by law; and (3) the accused was freely and consciously aware of being in possession of the drug. 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 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. 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. Thus, conviction need not be predicated upon exclusive possession, and a showing of non-exclusive possession would not exonerate the accused. Such fact of possession may be proved by direct or circumstantial evidence and any reasonable inference drawn therefrom. However, the prosecution must prove that the accused had knowledge of the existence and presence of the drug in the place under his control and dominion and the character of the drug.

Here, the court held that since knowledge by the accused of the existence and character of the drugs in the place where he exercises dominion and control is an internal act, the same way may be presumed from the fact that the dangerous drug is in the house or place over which the accused has control or dominion or within such premises in the absence of any satisfactory explanation.”

Popular posts from this blog

CRIMINAL LAW II CASE DIGEST/ BACLAYON V. MUTIA, 129 SCRA 148

CONSTITUTIONAL LAW I CASE DIGEST | THE DIOCESE OF BACOLOD V. COMELEC G.R. No. 205728, January 21, 2015

CREDIT TRANSACTIONS CASE DIGEST/ BPI FAMILY BANK VS. FRANCO/ G. R. NO. 123498/ 23 NOVEMBER 2007

REMEDIAL LAW | Riviera Golf Club v. CCA G.R. No. 173783, June 17 2015

CREDIT TRANSACTION CASE DIGEST/ MINA VS. PASCUAL/ 25 PHIL. 540 (1923)

CREDIT TRANSACTION CASE DIGEST/ QUINTOS VS. BECK/ 69 PHIL. 108 (1939)

LAW ON PROPERTY | ACOSTA V. OCHOA, ET AL., G.R. NO. 211559; G.R. NO. 215634, OCTOBER 15, 2019

ALTERNATIVE DISPUTE RESOLUTION | HYGIENIC PACKAGING CORPORATION VS. NUTRI-ASIA, INC ., G.R. NO. 201302, JANUARY 23, 2019

LEGAL ETHICS | MAURICIO C. ULEP VS. THE LEGAL CLINIC, INC Bar Matter No. 553. June 17, 1993

CREDIT TRANSACTION CASE DIGEST/ DELOS SANTOS VS. JARRA/ G. R. NO. L-4150/ 10 FEBRUARY 1910/ 15 PHIL. 147