SECOND DIVISION

[G.R. No. 182348. November 20, 2008.]

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, vs. CARLOS

DELA CRUZ, accused-appellant.

DECISION

VELASCO, JR., J : p

This is an appeal from the November 29, 2007 Decision of the Court of
Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. CR-H.C. No. 02286 entitled People of the Philippines
v. Carlos Dela Cruz which affirmed the September 16, 2005 Decision of the
Regional Trial Court (RTC), Branch 77 in San Mateo, Rizal in Criminal Case
Nos. 6517 (Illegal Possession of Firearm and Ammunition) and 6518
(Possession of Dangerous Drug). The RTC found accused-appellant Carlos
Dela Cruz guilty beyond reasonable doubt of violation of Section 11 (2) of
Republic Act No. (RA) 9165 or The Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of
2002.
The Facts
On November 15, 2002, charges against accused-appellant were made
before the RTC. The Informations read as follows:
Criminal Case No. 6517

That, on or about the 20th day of October 2002, in the

Municipality of San Mateo, Province of Rizal, Philippines and within the
jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the above-named accused, being
then a private citizen, without any lawful authority, did then and there
willfully, unlawfully, and knowingly have in his possession and under
his custody and control One (1) Gauge Shotgun marked ARMSCOR with
Serial No. 1108533 loaded with four (4) live ammunition, which are
high powered firearm and ammunition respectively, without first
securing the necessary license to possess or permit to carry said
firearm and ammunition from the proper authorities. HIEAcC

Criminal Case No. 6518

That on or about the 20th day of October 2002, in the

Municipality of San Mateo, Province of Rizal, Philippines and within the
jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the above-named accused, not
being authorized by law, did then and there willfully, unlawfully and
knowingly have in his possession, direct custody and control one (1)
heat-sealed transparent plastic bag weighing 49.84 grams of white
crystalline substance, which gave positive results for
Methamphetamine Hydrochloride, a dangerous drug. 1

Accused-appellant entered a not guilty plea and trial ensued.

CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2021 cdasiaonline.com
 The facts, according to the prosecution, showed that in the morning of
October 20, 2002, an informant tipped off the Drug Enforcement Unit of the
Marikina Police Station that wanted drug pusher Wifredo Loilo alias "Boy
Bicol" was at his nipa hut hideout in San Mateo, Rizal. A team was organized
to arrest Boy Bicol. Once there, they saw Boy Bicol by a table talking with
accused-appellant. They shouted "Boy Bicol sumuko ka na may warrant of
arrest ka. (Surrender yourself Boy Bicol you have a warrant of arrest.)" Upon
hearing this, Boy Bicol engaged them in a shootout and was fatally shot.
Accused-appellant was seen holding a shotgun through a window. He
dropped his shotgun when a police officer pointed his firearm at him. The
team entered the nipa hut and apprehended accused-appellant. They saw a
plastic bag of suspected shabu, a digital weighing scale, drug paraphernalia,
ammunition, and magazines lying on the table. PO1 Calanoga, Jr. put the
markings "CVDC", the initials of accused-appellant, on the bag containing
the seized drug. TDCaSE

Accused-appellant was subsequently arrested. The substance seized

from the hideout was sent to the Philippine National Police crime laboratory
for examination and tested positive for methamphetamine hydrochloride or
shabu. He was thus separately indicted for violation of RA 9165 and for
illegal possession of firearm.
According to the defense, accused-appellant was at Boy Bicol's house
having been asked to do a welding job for Boy Bicol's motorcycle. While
accused-appellant was there, persons who identified themselves as police
officers approached the place, prompting accused-appellant to scamper
away. He lied face down when gunshots rang. The buy-bust team then
helped him get up. He saw the police officers searching the premises and
finding shabu and firearms, which were on top of a table or drawer. 2 When
he asked the reason for his apprehension, he was told that it was because
he was a companion of Boy Bicol. He denied under oath that the gun and
drugs seized were found in his possession and testified that he was only
invited by Boy Bicol to get the motorcycle from his house. 3
The RTC acquitted accused-appellant of illegal possession of firearm
and ammunition but convicted him of possession of dangerous drugs. The
dispositive portion of the RTC Decision reads:
WHEREFORE, the Court based on insufficiency of evidence
hereby ACQUITS accused CARLOS DELA CRUZ Y VICTORINO in Criminal
Case No. 6517 for violation of P.D. 1866 as amended by RA 8294.

In Criminal Case No. 6518 for Possession of Dangerous Drug

under Section 11, 2nd paragraph of Republic Act 9165, the Court finds
said accused CARLOS DELA CRUZ Y VICTORINO, GUILTY beyond
reasonable doubt and is hereby sentenced to Life Imprisonment and to
Pay a Fine of FOUR HUNDRED THOUSAND PESOS (P400,000.00).

SO ORDERED. 4

On December 7, 2005, accused-appellant filed a Notice of Appeal of

the RTC Decision. ISHaTA

CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2021 cdasiaonline.com

 In his appeal to the CA, accused-appellant claimed 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. 5 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.
On the supposedly broken chain of custody of the illegal drug, the
appellate court held that accused-appellant's claim is unpersuasive absent
any evidence showing that the plastic sachet of shabu had been tampered or
meddled with.
On December 20, 2007, accused-appellant filed his Notice of Appeal of
the CA Decision.
On June 25, 2008, this Court required the parties to submit
supplemental briefs if they so desired. The parties later signified their
willingness to submit the case on the basis of the records already with the
Court.
Accused-appellant presents the following issues before us:
I

THE COURT A QUO GRAVELY ERRED IN GIVING FULL CREDENCE TO THE

VERSION OF THE PROSECUTION
II

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 SEHaTC

III
THE COURT A QUO GRAVELY ERRED IN CONVICTING THE ACCUSED-
APPELLANT OF THE OFFENSE CHARGED DESPITE THE PATENT
ILLEGALITY OF HIS ARREST

IV
THE TRIAL COURT GRAVELY ERRED IN CONVICTING THE ACCUSED-
APPELLANT OF VIOLATION OF SECTION 11, ARTICLE II, RA 9165
DESPITE THE FAILURE OF THE PROSECUTION TO ESTABLISH THE CHAIN
OF CUSTODY OF THE ILLEGAL DRUG ALLEGEDLY FOUND IN HIS
POSSESSION

Accused-appellant claims that the presence of all the elements of the

CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2021 cdasiaonline.com
 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.
The Court's Ruling
The appeal has merit.
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. 6 On the third
element, we 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. 7 Considering that as to this knowledge, a person's mental state
of awareness of a fact is involved, we have ruled that:
Since courts cannot penetrate the mind of an accused and
thereafter state its perceptions with certainty, resort to other evidence
is necessary. Animus possidendi, as a state of mind, may be
determined on a case-to-case basis by taking into consideration the
prior or contemporaneous acts of the accused, as well as the
surrounding circumstances. Its existence may and usually must be
inferred from the attendant events in each particular case. 8

The prior or contemporaneous acts of accused-appellant show that: he

was inside the nipa hut at the time the buy-bust operation was taking place;
he was talking to Boy Bicol inside the nipa hut; he was seen holding a
shotgun; when PO1 Calanoga, Jr. pointed his firearm at accused-appellant,
the latter dropped his shotgun; and when apprehended, he was in a room
which had the seized shabu, digital weighing scale, drug paraphernalia,
ammunition, and magazines. Accused-appellant later admitted that he knew
what the content of the seized plastic bag was. 9
Given the circumstances, we find that the prosecution failed to
establish possession of the shabu, whether in its actual or constructive
sense, on the part of accused-appellant.
The two buy-bust team members corroborated each other's
testimonies on how they saw Boy Bicol talking to accused-appellant by a
table inside the nipa hut. That table, they testified, was the same table
where they saw the shabu once inside the nipa hut. This fact was used by
the prosecution to show that accused-appellant exercised dominion and
control over the shabu on the table. We, however, find this too broad an
application of the concept of constructive possession. DEaCSA

In People v. Torres, 10 we held there was constructive possession of

prohibited drugs even when the accused was not home when the prohibited
drugs were found in the master's bedroom of his house.
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2021 cdasiaonline.com
 In People v. Tira, 11 we sustained the conviction of the accused
husband and wife for illegal possession of dangerous drugs. Their residence
was searched and their bed was found to be concealing illegal drugs
underneath. We held that the wife cannot feign ignorance of the drugs'
existence as she had full access to the room, including the space under the
bed.
In Abuan v. People, 12 we affirmed the finding that the accused was in
constructive possession of prohibited drugs which had been found in the
drawer located in her bedroom.
In all these cases, the accused was held to be in constructive
possession of illegal drugs since they were shown to enjoy dominion and
control over the premises where these drugs were found.
In the instant case, however, 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. But in spite of the lack of
evidence pinning accused-appellant to illegal possession of drugs, the trial
court declared the following:
It cannot be denied that when the accused was talking with Boy
Bicol he knew that the shabu was on the table with other items that
were confiscated by the police operatives. The court [surmises] that
the accused and boy Bicol were members of a gang hiding in that nipa
hut where they were caught red-handed with prohibited items and
dangerous [drugs]. 13CHDTEA

The trial court cannot assume, based on the prosecution's evidence,

that accused-appellant was part of a gang dealing in illegal activities. Apart
from his presence in Boy Bicol's nipa hut, the prosecution was not able to
show his participation in any drug-dealing. He was not even in possession of
drugs in his person. He was merely found inside a room with shabu, not as
the room's owner or occupant but as a guest. While he allegedly pointed a
firearm at the buy-bust team, the prosecution curiously failed to produce the
firearm that accused-appellant supposedly used.
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.
Since accused-appellant was not in possession of the illegal drugs in
Boy Bicol's nipa hut, his subsequent arrest was also invalid. Rule 113 of the
Rules on Criminal Procedure on warrantless arrest provides:
Sec. 5. Arrest without warrant; when lawful. — A peace
officer or a private person may, without a warrant, arrest a person:
a) When, in his presence, the person to be arrested has
committed, is actually committing, or is attempting to commit an
offense;
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2021 cdasiaonline.com
 b) When an offense has just been committed, and he has
probable cause to believe based on personal knowledge of facts or
circumstances that the person to be arrested has committed it; and
c) When the person to be arrested is a prisoner who has
escaped from a penal establishment or place where he is serving final
judgment or is temporarily confined while his case is pending, or has
escaped while being transferred from one confinement to another.

The warrantless arrest of accused-appellant was effected under Sec. 5

(a), 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. 14 TEcADS

Accused-appellant's act of pointing a firearm at the buy-bust team

would have been sufficient basis for his arrest in flagrante delicto; however,
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. He was eventually acquitted by the trial
court because of this gaffe. 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.
In sum, we find that there is insufficient evidence to show accused-
appellant's guilt beyond reasonable doubt. Having ruled on the lack of
material or constructive possession by accused-appellant of the seized
shabu and his succeeding illegal arrest, we deem it unnecessary to deal with
the other issue raised.
WHEREFORE, the appeal is GRANTED. The CA Decision dated
November 29, 2007 in CA-G.R. CR-H.C. No. 02286 is REVERSED and SET
ASIDE. Accused-appellant Carlos Dela Cruz is ACQUITTED of violation of Sec.
11 (2) of RA 9165 in Criminal Case No. 6518 of the RTC, Branch 77 in San
Mateo, Rizal.
SO ORDERED.
Quisumbing, Carpio-Morales, Tinga and Brion, JJ., concur.

Footnotes
1. Rollo, p. 3. TcIHDa

2. Id. at 5.
3. CA rollo, p. 17.
4. Id. at 26. Penned by Judge Francisco C. Rodriguez, Jr.
5. Rollo, p. 18. The Decision was penned by Associate Justice Sixto C. Marella,
Jr. and concurred in by Associate Justices Mario L. Guariña III and Japar B.
Dimaampao.
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2021 cdasiaonline.com
 6. People v. Naquita, G.R. No. 180511, July 28, 2008.
7. People v. Lagata, G.R. No. 135323, June 25, 2003, 404 SCRA 671, 676; citing
People v. Tee, G.R. Nos. 140546-47, January 20, 2003, 395 SCRA 419.
8. Lagata, supra; citing People v. Burton, 335 Phil. 1003, 1024-1025 (2000).
9. Rollo, p. 50.
10. G.R. No. 170837, September 12, 2006, 501 SCRA 591, 610-611.
11. G.R. No. 139615, May 28, 2004, 430 SCRA 134, 152-153.
12. G.R. No. 168773, October 27, 2006, 505 SCRA 799, 818-819.

13. CA rollo, p. 25. IcHTED

14. People v. Laguio, Jr., G.R. No. 128587, March 16, 2007, 518 SCRA 393, 422.

CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2021 cdasiaonline.com