G.R. No. 192332 , January 11, 2021
Emily Estores y Pecardal, Petitioner, vs. People of the Philippines, Respondent.

FACTS

Petitioner Emily Estores and her co-accused Miguel Canlas and Josefina Pecardal-Estores were charged with violation of Section 16, Article III in relation to Section 2(e)(2), Article I of R.A. No. 6425 (The Dangerous Drugs Act), as amended, for possession and/or use of 1,120.6 grams of methylamphetamine hydrochloride (shabu) without license or prescription. The prosecution evidence established that after a test buy operation, a search warrant was issued. On July 15, 1999, a police team searched the third-floor room of the house at No. 12 Pusoy St., Masambong, Quezon City, which Emily shared with Miguel. In the presence of Emily and Miguel, SPO2 Antonio Conlu found a plastic bag containing white crystalline substance in a cabinet drawer. The substance tested positive for shabu. The defense, presented by Emily, claimed she was asleep when armed men entered, that she and her family were brought to a different location after the search, and that she had no knowledge of the drugs, suggesting they could have been placed there by Miguel without her knowledge. The Regional Trial Court (RTC) convicted Emily and Miguel, finding Emily had constructive possession of the drugs as they were found in her room over which she had control and dominion. The Court of Appeals (CA) affirmed the RTC decision, ruling that Emily had knowledge of the drugs given her exclusive control over the room and the unlikelihood of such a quantity being mistaken for a common household item.

ISSUE

1. Whether the Court of Appeals erred in ruling that petitioner had constructive possession and knowledge of the prohibited drugs.
2. Whether the search and seizure and handling of the prohibited drugs were done in accordance with law.

RULING

The Supreme Court DENIED the petition and AFFIRMED the CA decision.
1. On constructive possession and knowledge: The Court ruled that the prosecution successfully established petitioner’s constructive possession of the illegal drugs. Constructive possession exists when the drug is under the dominion and control of the accused or when he/she has the right to exercise dominion and control over the place where it is found. The drugs were discovered in a cabinet drawer inside the third-floor bedroom which Emily shared with Miguel and over which she exercised control and dominion. Her knowledge of the drugs’ existence is presumed from this fact. The Court found her denial and claim of ignorance unconvincing, noting it is contrary to human experience for a person sharing a room not to know of the presence of a significant quantity of drugs stored in a common cabinet. The defense failed to rebut this presumption.
2. On the legality of search and seizure: The Court ruled that the search and seizure were lawful. The search was conducted by virtue of a validly issued warrant. The requirements of Rule 126 of the Rules of Court were satisfied, as the search was conducted in the presence of the lawful occupants, Emily and Miguel. Any alleged non-observance of the PNP Rules of Engagement does not invalidate the search, as the governing procedures are those under the Rules of Court. The Court also found the chain of custody of the seized drugs was properly established, as the item was immediately marked at the place of seizure and subsequently submitted for laboratory examination.
The penalty of reclusion perpetua and a fine of P1,000,000.00 was upheld. The Director General of the Bureau of Corrections and the Chief of the Bureau of Jail Management and Penology were directed to compute any applicable good conduct time allowance for the petitioner.