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.