The Supreme Court affirmed the conviction of Rowena and Ryan Santos for violating Section 11, Article II of Republic Act No. 9165 (RA 9165), the Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002, emphasizing the principle of constructive possession. The ruling underscores that even without direct physical possession, individuals can be held liable for illegal drugs found in areas under their dominion and control, provided they have knowledge of the drugs’ presence. This decision reinforces the state’s efforts to combat drug-related offenses by clarifying the scope of possession to include those who exercise control over premises where drugs are discovered.

When a Home Search Uncovers Hidden Drugs: Who Bears Responsibility?

This case revolves around the conviction of Rowena Santos and Ryan Santos for violating Section 11, Article II of RA 9165, which penalizes the possession of dangerous drugs. The charges stemmed from a search conducted on September 20, 2010, at their residences in Naga City. Based on search warrants, police officers discovered methamphetamine hydrochloride, commonly known as shabu, in both Rowena’s and Ryan’s homes, leading to their arrest and subsequent prosecution.

The prosecution presented evidence that during the search of Rowena’s house, a plastic sachet containing shabu was found hidden in a black coin purse on top of the refrigerator in the kitchen. Similarly, in Ryan’s house, six sachets of shabu were discovered inside a small blue box on the second level of a cabinet in his bedroom. The police officers conducted the search in the presence of mandatory witnesses, including representatives from the Department of Justice (DOJ), media, and a barangay official, adhering to procedural requirements.

In contrast, the defense argued that the seized drugs did not belong to them and raised doubts about the integrity of the search. Rowena claimed that she was unaware of the coin purse and its contents until the police officers showed it to her. Ryan contended that he was not present during the search of his house and that the drugs could have belonged to other people who frequented his residence. Despite these claims, the Regional Trial Court (RTC) found both Rowena and Ryan guilty beyond reasonable doubt, a decision later affirmed by the Court of Appeals (CA).

The Supreme Court, in its review, focused on two key issues: whether the CA erred in convicting the petitioners for violation of Section 11, Article II of RA 9165, and whether the CA erred in finding that the petitioners had been in constructive possession of the illegal drugs found in their premises. The Court emphasized that factual and evidentiary matters are generally outside the scope of review in Rule 45 petitions, deferring to the lower courts’ findings unless justifiable circumstances warrant otherwise.

The Court explained the concept of constructive possession, stating that it exists when the drug is under the dominion and control of the accused, or when he has the right to exercise dominion and control over the place where it is found. The court cited People v. Tira, elucidating that:

This crime is mala prohibita, and, as such, criminal intent is not an essential element. However, the prosecution must prove that the accused had the intent to possess (animus posidendi) the drugs. 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 the 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 Court further emphasized that the accused cannot avoid conviction if their right to exercise control and dominion over the place where the contraband is located is shared with another. Knowledge of the existence and character of the drugs in the place where one exercises dominion and control may be presumed from the fact that the dangerous drugs are in the house or place over which the accused has control or dominion, or within such premises in the absence of any satisfactory explanation.

In assessing whether the chain of custody was properly observed, the Supreme Court referenced Section 21, paragraph 1, Article II of RA 9165, which outlines the procedure to be followed in the custody and handling of seized dangerous drugs:

(1) The apprehending team having initial custody and control of the drugs shall, immediately after seizure and confiscation, physically inventory and photograph the same in the presence of the accused or the person/s from whom such items were confiscated and/or seized, or his/her representative or counsel, a representative from the media and the Department of Justice (DOJ), and any elected public official who shall be required to sign the copies of the inventory and be given a copy thereof[.]

The Court noted that the police officers were able to strictly comply with the requirements laid down in Section 21. They conducted the physical inventory and photography of the seized items in the presence of petitioners, a representative from the media, a representative of the DOJ and a barangay official at the place where the search was conducted. This adherence to procedure bolstered the prosecution’s case and ensured the integrity of the evidence presented.

The Court identified the four links that should be established in the chain of custody of the confiscated item: first, the seizure and marking, if practicable, of the illegal drug recovered from the accused by the apprehending officer; second, the turnover of the illegal drug seized by the apprehending officer to the investigating officer; third, the turnover by the investigating officer of the illegal drug to the forensic chemist for laboratory examination; and fourth, the turnover and submission of the marked illegal drug seized from the forensic chemist to the court. The prosecution successfully proved all these links, further solidifying the case against Rowena and Ryan.

Building on this principle, the Supreme Court affirmed the CA’s ruling that Rowena and Ryan were in constructive possession of the seized drugs. The drugs were found in areas over which they exercised dominion and control: a coin purse on top of the refrigerator in Rowena’s living room and a plastic container box inside a cabinet in Ryan’s bedroom. The presence of mandatory witnesses during the seizure, confiscation, inventory, and photography of the drugs further supported the conclusion that the drugs were indeed found in their respective residences.

The Santos siblings failed to provide any satisfactory explanation to overcome the presumption that the seized items belonged to them. The fact that other family members lived in their houses did not negate their control over the premises. Thus, the Supreme Court upheld the conviction, emphasizing that the prosecution had successfully established all the elements of the crime and had adhered to the required procedures in handling the evidence.

FAQs

What is constructive possession?	Constructive possession means having control over an object or place where illegal items are found, even if you don’t physically hold them. It implies the power and intent to control the items.
What does the prosecution need to prove in a drug possession case?	The prosecution must prove that the accused had knowledge and intent to possess the drugs, even in constructive possession scenarios. This can be inferred from the accused’s control over the location where the drugs were discovered.
What is the chain of custody in drug cases?	The chain of custody is the process of tracking seized drugs from the moment of confiscation to presentation in court. It ensures the integrity and identity of the evidence.
What is the significance of Section 21 of RA 9165?	Section 21 of RA 9165 mandates specific procedures for handling seized drugs, including immediate inventory and photography in the presence of witnesses. Compliance with these procedures is crucial for the admissibility of evidence in court.
What are the consequences of violating Section 11 of RA 9165?	Violation of Section 11 of RA 9165, which penalizes possession of dangerous drugs, can result in lengthy prison sentences and substantial fines. The severity of the penalty depends on the quantity and type of drug involved.
What role do witnesses play in drug cases?	Witnesses, such as DOJ representatives, media personnel, and barangay officials, play a crucial role in ensuring transparency and accountability during searches and seizures. Their presence helps prevent abuse and safeguards the rights of the accused.
Can a person be convicted of drug possession even if others have access to the area?	Yes, a person can be convicted even if others have access, as long as the prosecution proves that the accused exercises dominion and control over the area where the drugs were found. Exclusive possession is not required.
What is mala prohibita?	Mala prohibita refers to acts that are criminal because they are prohibited by law, not because they are inherently immoral. Drug possession is an example, where the act is illegal regardless of the intent behind it.

This case clarifies that constructive possession is sufficient for a conviction under RA 9165, provided that the accused has control over the premises and knowledge of the drugs. The meticulous adherence to procedural safeguards by the police officers in this case underscores the importance of following legal protocols in drug-related operations. This ruling serves as a reminder that maintaining control over one’s property carries the responsibility of ensuring that no illegal activities occur within it.

For inquiries regarding the application of this ruling to specific circumstances, please contact ASG Law through contact or via email at frontdesk@asglawpartners.com.

Disclaimer: This analysis is provided for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. For specific legal guidance tailored to your situation, please consult with a qualified attorney.
Source: Rowena Santos v. People, G.R. No. 242656, August 14, 2019