People vs Dela Cruz 571 SCRA 469
Facts:
On November 15, 2002, charges against accused-appellant were made before the
RTC for Illegal Possession of Firearm and Ammunition and Possession of Dangerous Drug. The
RTC acquitted accused-appellant of illegal possession of firearm and ammunition but
convicted him of possession of dangerous drugs. On December 7, 2005, accused-appellant
filed a Notice of Appeal of the RTC Decision claiming that: (1) the version of the prosecution
should not have been given full credence; (2) the prosecution failed to prove beyond
reasonable doubt that he was guilty of possession of an illegal drug; (3) his arrest was
patently illegal; and (4) the prosecution failed to establish the chain of custody of the illegal
drug allegedly in his possession.
The CA sustained accused-appellant’s conviction. It pointed out that accused-
appellant was positively identified by prosecution witnesses, rendering his uncorroborated
denial and allegation of frame-up weak. As to accused-appellant’s alleged illegal arrest, the
CA held that he is deemed to have waived his objection when he entered his plea, applied
for bail, and actively participated in the trial without questioning such arrest.
Accused-appellant claims that the presence of all the elements of the offense of
possession of dangerous drug was not proved beyond reasonable doubt since both actual
and constructive possessions were not proved. He asserts that the shabu was not found in
his actual possession, for which reason the prosecution was required to establish that he had
constructive possession over the shabu. He maintains that as he had no control and
dominion over the drug or over the place where it was found, the prosecution likewise failed
to prove constructive possession.
Issue: Whether or not the court a quo gravely erred in finding the accused-appellant guilty
of violation of section 11, Article II, RA 9165 despite the failure of the prosecution to prove
the commission of the offense charged beyond reasonable doubt?
Ruling: The SC acquitted accused-appellant of violation of sec. 11(2) of RA 9165. The
prosecution in this case clearly failed to show all the elements of the crime absent a showing
of either actual or constructive possession by the accused-appellant.
The elements in illegal possession of dangerous drug are: (1) the accused is in possession of
an item or object which is identified to be a prohibited drug; (2) such possession is not
authorized by law; and (3) the accused freely and consciously possessed the said drug. On
the third element, the court have held that the possession must be with knowledge of the
accused or that animus possidendi existed with the possession or control of said articles.
In the instant case, there is no question that accused-appellant was not the owner of the
nipa hut that was subject of the buy-bust operation. He did not have dominion or control
over the nipa hut. Neither was accused-appellant a tenant or occupant of the nipa hut, a fact
not disputed by the prosecution. The target of the operation was Boy Bicol. Accused-
appellant was merely a guest of Boy Bicol.
Since accused-appellant was not in possession of the illegal drugs in Boy Bicol’s nipa
hut, his subsequent arrest was also invalid. The warrantless arrest of accused-appellant was
effected under Sec. 5(a), Rule 113 of the Rules on Criminal Procedure, arrest of a suspect in
flagrante delicto. For this type of warrantless arrest to be valid, two requisites must concur:
(1) the person to be arrested must execute an overt act indicating that he has just
committed, is actually committing, or is attempting to commit a crime; and (2) such overt
act is done in the presence or within the view of the arresting officer. The prosecution was
not able to adequately prove that accused-appellant was committing an offense. Although
accused-appellant merely denied possessing the firearm, the prosecution’s charge was weak
absent the presentation of the alleged firearm. His arrest, independent of the buy-bust
operation targeting Boy Bicol, was therefore not lawful as he was not proved to be
committing any offense.
