G.R. No. 182348 , November 20, 2008
People of the Philippines, plaintiff-appellee vs. Carlos Dela Cruz, accused-appellant.

FACTS

On October 20, 2002, a police team acted on a tip and went to a nipa hut in San Mateo, Rizal, to arrest wanted drug pusher “Boy Bicol.” Upon arrival, they saw Boy Bicol talking with accused-appellant Carlos Dela Cruz inside. A shootout ensued, resulting in Boy Bicol’s death. The police saw accused-appellant holding a shotgun through a window; he dropped it when an officer pointed a firearm at him. Inside the hut, the police found on a table a plastic bag containing a white crystalline substance (later confirmed as 49.84 grams of shabu), a digital weighing scale, drug paraphernalia, ammunition, and magazines. PO1 Calanoga, Jr. marked the plastic bag with “CVDC,” accused-appellant’s initials. Accused-appellant was charged with illegal possession of firearm and ammunition (Criminal Case No. 6517) and possession of dangerous drugs under RA 9165 (Criminal Case No. 6518). The Regional Trial Court (RTC) acquitted him of the firearm charge but convicted him of drug possession, sentencing him to life imprisonment and a fine. The Court of Appeals affirmed the conviction. Accused-appellant appealed to the Supreme Court, arguing the prosecution failed to prove possession, his arrest was illegal, and the chain of custody of the drug was not established.

ISSUE

Whether the prosecution proved beyond reasonable doubt that accused-appellant was guilty of illegal possession of dangerous drugs under Section 11 of RA 9165.

RULING

The Supreme Court GRANTED the appeal, REVERSED and SET ASIDE the Court of Appeals Decision, and ACQUITTED accused-appellant. The Court found the prosecution failed to prove the element of possession, either actual or constructive. The illegal drug was found on a table inside a nipa hut owned and controlled by Boy Bicol, not accused-appellant. Accused-appellant was merely a guest or visitor, and no evidence showed he exercised dominion or control over the hut or the drug. The prior acts of accused-appellant (being inside, talking to Boy Bicol, holding a shotgun) did not establish animus possidendi (intent to possess) over the shabu. The Court distinguished the case from previous constructive possession rulings where the accused had control over the premises where drugs were found. Furthermore, the arrest was deemed illegal as accused-appellant was not committing an offense in the presence of the arresting officers at the time. Given the insufficiency of evidence on possession, the Court did not find it necessary to rule on the other issues.