THIRD DIVISION
[G.R. No. 237690. May 3, 2021.]
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, vs.ROSALIE KILAT y CADAVIS, accused-appellant.
NOTICE
Sirs/Mesdames :
Please take notice that the Court, Third Division, issued a Resolution datedMay 3, 2021, which reads as follows:
"G.R. No. 237690 (People of the Philippines v. Rosalie Kilat y Cadavis). — On appeal is the March 15, 2017 Decision 1 of the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. CEB-CR No. 02662, which affirmed the September 14, 2015 Judgment 2 of the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Dumaguete City, Branch 30, in Crim. Case No. 2014-22398 that found accused-appellant Rosalie Cadavis Kilat (Rosalie) guilty beyond reasonable doubt of illegal possession of dangerous drugs under Section 11, Article II of Republic Act No. 9165 (RA 9165), otherwise known as the Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002, 3 as amended.
The Factual Antecedents:
This case arose from an Information 4 dated August 14, 2015 charging Rosalie with the crime of illegal possession of dangerous drugs, to wit:
That on or about the 11th day of August 2014, in the City of Dumaguete, Philippines, and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the said accused, not being then authorized by law, did, then and there willfully, unlawfully and criminally keep and have under her control and possession four (4) heat-sealed transparent plastic sachets containing an approximate aggregate weight of 0.19 gram of Methamphetamine Hydrochloride, commonly called 'shabu,' a dangerous drug.
Contrary to Section 11, Article II, R.A. 9165. 5
During arraignment, Rosalie pleaded not guilty. 6 She was initially detained in Dumaguete City District Jail; she, however, was released from custody after posting bail in the amount of P100,000.00. 7
Proceedings ensued.
Version of the Prosecution:
On August 8, 2014, Police Officer 2 Dexter Banua (PO2 Banua) applied for the issuance of a warrant to search Rosalie's residence based on a surveillance operation previously conducted by Police Officer 1 Archimedes Olasiman (PO1 Olasiman) and Police Officer 2 Julius Ceasar M. Gajetos (PO2 Gajetos). 8 PO1 Olasiman claimed that on August 5, 2014, he was able to purchase shabu from Rosalie in her residence during a test-buy operation. 9 The Executive Judge 10 of RTC Dumaguete City granted the application and issued Search Warrant No. 12-2014. 11
On August 11, 2014, the Special Operations Group (SOG) of the provincial police of Negros Oriental held a final briefing for the implementation of the search warrant: Senior Police Officer 4 Allen June Germodo (SPO4 Germodo) was the team leader; PO1 Olasiman was designated as searcher; PO2 Gajetos was the photographer; while the other team members served as perimeter security. 12 At around 2:00 P.M. of the same day, the team proceeded to Rosalie's residence in Barangay Cadawinon, Dumaguete City to serve Search Warrant No. 12-2014. 13 Notably, another SOG team, also led by SPO4 Germodo, was simultaneously serving another search warrant in a nearby house. 14·
Upon their arrival at the site, the team saw several people inside Rosalie's house. 15 PO1 Olasiman asked one of the guests if Rosalie was there; thereafter, Rosalie went outside and met the police officers. 16 PO1 Olasiman introduced himself as a police officer and he informed her that they had a warrant to search the place. 17 Rosalie allowed the team to enter the gate. 18 PO1 Olasiman read and explained the search warrant to Rosalie. After a while, Barangay Kagawad Eusebia Albina (Kagawad Albina) arrived at the house. 19 PO1 Olasiman read the search warrant again, now in the presence of Kagawad Albina. 20
Police Officer 1 Marlyn Orenciada (PO1 Orenciada), another member of the team, proceeded to search Rosalie's body. 21 PO1 Orenciada was able to recover paper bills, which the team believed to be proceeds from the sale of dangerous drugs. 22 Hence, they confiscated the paper bills. 23
PO1 Olasiman, with Kagawad Albina, proceeded to conduct the search. The search was witnessed by Rosalie and her mother; they followed PO1 Olasiman and Kagawad Albina around the house as the latter conducted the search. 24
During the search, PO1 Olasiman saw a plastic container on the floor beside an Orocan25 plastic cabinet-drawer at the bottom of the stairs going to the second floor. 26 He opened the container and found four pieces of heat-sealed transparent plastic sachets containing white crystalline substance. 27 He took those items and placed them on the table in the living room. 28
PO1 Olasiman then arrested Rosalie and informed her of her constitutional rights. 29
While still inside the house, PO1 Olasiman placed markings on the items: "RK-P" on the plastic container, and "RK-P1" to "RK-P4" on the four heat-sealed transparent plastic sachets containing white crystalline substance. 30 He placed these items on a long brown envelope. 31
PO1 Olasiman also prepared an inventory of all the seized items in the presence of Rosalie and the required witnesses, namely: (a) Kagawad Albina; (b) Department of Justice (DOJ) representative Anthony Chilius Benlot (Benlot); and, (c) media practitioner Glenn Serion (Serion). 32 Benlot and Serion, however, arrived at the house only after the search was conducted. 33 The witnesses signed the inventory of the property seized and the receipt of the property seized. 34 Photographs were also taken as part of procedure.
After the inventory, the police officers brought Rosalie and the seized items to the SOG office. 35 PO1 Olasiman then made a request for laboratory examination of the seized items and drug test of Rosalie. 36 He also prepared a "Return of Search Warrant with Prayer to Retain Custody of the Seized [Items]," which the trial court granted. 37
In the laboratory, the seized items were received by Police Chief Inspector Josephine Llena (PCI Llena). 38 She conducted a qualitative examination and found that the seized items were positive for methampethamine hydrochloride or shabu, a dangerous drug. 39 She kept the seized items in an evidence vault until presentation to the trial court. 40
Version of the Accused:
Rosalie, for her part, claimed that at around 2:00 P.M. of August 11, 2014, she was inside her mother's house (the subject of the search warrant) where she and her children were residing to celebrate her birthday. 41 She then noticed that there were several persons outside the house looking for her. 42 She invited them in the house to eat. 43 Upon entering, the individuals introduced themselves as police officers and showed her a search warrant. 44 The police officers searched the house in her presence together with her mother and older brother. 45 Nothing was found during the search. 46 Thereafter, Rosalie offered them food, which they accepted. 47
After a while, Kagawad Albina arrived at the house. 48 The police officers approached her and read the search warrant to her. 49 They again conducted a search of the house, this time with the presence of Kagawad Albina. 50 PO1 Olasiman then declared that he saw something near the stairs. He asked for a flashlight, then walked towards a plastic drum near the stairs, and took "something." 51 The police officers then searched Rosalie's body and confiscated the money in her pockets. 52
Ruling of the Regional Trial Court:
The trial court found Rosalie guilty beyond reasonable doubt for illegal possession of dangerous drugs. 53 The elements of the offense were present. Rosalie's possession of the drug was with her knowledge. The possession constitutes prima facie evidence of knowledge or animus possidendi; Rosalie failed to rebut this presumption of knowledge. 54 It further ruled that there was compliance with the rules on chain of custody. 55 It also did not give much credence to Rosalie's defense of denial and frame-up as the prosecution witnesses were able to positively and consistently identify her and point out the commission of the offense. 56 It added that if Rosalie's claims of undue incrimination were true, then she should have filed administrative or criminal complaints against the police officers involved to vindicate herself. 57 The RTC sentenced Rosalie to suffer an indeterminate penalty of 12 years and one day as minimum term to 14 years as maximum term and to pay a fine in the amount of P400,000.00. 58
The dispositive portion of the Judgment reads:
WHEREFORE, in light of the foregoing, the Court hereby finds the accused Rosalie Kilat y Cadavis GUILTY beyond reasonable doubt of the offense of illegal possession of 0.19 gram of shabu in violation of Section 11, Article II of R.A. No. 9165 and is hereby sentenced to suffer an indeterminate penalty of twelve (12) years and one (1) day as minimum term to fourteen (14) years as maximum term and to pay a fine of Four Hundred Thousand Pesos (P400,000.00).
The four (4) heat-sealed transparent plastic sachets with markings "RK-P1" to "RK-P4," respectively, and containing an approximate aggregate weight of 0.19 gram of Methamphetamine Hydrochloride or shabu are hereby confiscated and forfeited in favor of the government and to be disposed of in accordance with law.
SO ORDERED. 59
Aggrieved, Rosalie filed a notice of appeal. The CA subsequently ordered the parties to file their respective briefs. 60
Ruling of the Court of Appeals:
In its March 15, 2017 Decision, the CA affirmed the RTC's finding of guilt and imposition of penalty. On the matter of chain of custody, the appellate court added that the fact that the date and time of seizure were not indicated on the markings on the articles is not fatal, as these were properly indicated in the Receipt of Property Seized issued by the team. 61
The dispositive portion of the appellate court's Decision reads:
WHEREFORE, the appeal is DENIED. The Judgment dated September 14, 2015 of Branch 30 of the Regional Trial Court of Dumaguete City in Crim. Case No. 2014-22398 is AFFIRMED.
SO ORDERED. 62
Rosalie elevated the case to this Court by filing a notice of appeal 63 which the appellate granted in its Resolution dated January 9, 2018. 64 Both parties (the prosecution represented by the Office of the Solicitor General) manifested to this Court that they will be adopting their respective appeal briefs that they filed in the appellate court. 65
Rosalie argues that the rules on chain of custody were not properly observed in this case:
First, witness Serion (media practitioner) was not present during the preparation of the list of seized items; he arrived when the inventory was completed and all he had to do was sign the documents without knowledge as to how these were prepared. 66 He was not present during the actual conduct of the search and inventory. 67
Second, there are inconsistencies in the testimonies of Kagawad Albina and PO1 Olasiman as regards the position of Rosalie while PO1 Olasiman was searching the premises, thereby casting reasonable doubt: Kagawad Albina stated that Rosalie remained in the living room during the search, while PO1 Olasiman stated that Rosalie was behind him. 68
Third, the markings on the seized items did not contain the date when they were seized and the initials of the seizing officer. 69
Fourth, PO1 Olasiman was not certain that the plastic container allegedly containing the dangerous drug that was found near the stairs came from her. 70 PO1 Olasiman merely assumed that the container came from Rosalie because she was the subject of the search warrant. 71
Lastly, Rosalie argues that the search warrant was implemented twice, and claims that the dangerous drug was planted during the alleged first search. 72
The OSG, for the State's behalf, argues that the conviction was valid:
First, all the elements of the offense were present. 73 It was undisputed that the dangerous drug was found in Rosalie's house, and her allegation that she does not know where the shabu came from is insufficient to overcome the presumption of knowledge. 74
Second, the integrity and evidentiary value of the seized items were safeguarded. 75
Third, the search conducted in Rosalie's house was valid. The house was searched in the presence of Rosalie, her mother, and Kagawad Albina; it was not shown that Rosalie or her mother were restricted in action by the police officers during the search. 76
Lastly, Rosalie failed to show any ill motive or odious intent on the part of the police officers in conducting the search and making the arrest. 77
In a letter dated June 15, 2018, the Superintendent of the Correctional Institution for Women in Mandaluyong City confirmed that Rosalie was detained therein since February 11, 2016. 78
Issue
Whether the RTC and CA erred in convicting Rosalie of Illegal Possession of Dangerous Drugs.
Our Ruling
The appeal is meritorious. The Court finds that the trial court and the appellate court erred in convicting Rosalie of illegal possession of dangerous drugs as the prosecution was not able to prove her guilt beyond reasonable doubt. Her acquittal is warranted.
Rosalie was charged with and convicted of illegal possession of shabu under Section 11 of RA 9165, as amended, which states:
Section 11. Possession of Dangerous Drugs. — The penalty of life imprisonment to death and a fine ranging from Five hundred thousand pesos (P500,000.00) to Ten million pesos (P10,000,000.00) shall be imposed upon any person, who, unless authorized by law, shall possess any dangerous drug in the following quantities, regardless of the degree of purity thereof:
xxx xxx xxx
(5) 50 grams or more of methamphetamine hydrochloride or "shabu";
xxx xxx xxx
Otherwise, if the quantity involved is less than the foregoing quantities, the penalties shall be graduated as follows:
xxx xxx xxx
(3) Imprisonment of twelve (12) years and one (1) day to twenty (20) years and a fine ranging from Three hundred thousand pesos (P300,000.00) to Four hundred thousand pesos (P400,000.00), if the quantities of dangerous drugs are less than five (5) grams of opium, morphine, heroin, cocaine or cocaine hydrochloride, marijuana resin or marijuana resin oil, methamphetamine hydrochloride or "shabu,". . . .
The elements of the crime of illegal possession are as follows: (a) the accused was in possession of an item or object identified as a prohibited drug; (b) such possession was not authorized by law; and (c) the accused freely and consciously possessed the said drug. 79
It is settled in jurisprudence that finding dangerous drugs or paraphernalia in a house or building owned or occupied by a particular person raises the presumption of knowledge and possession thereof, which, standing alone, is sufficient to convict. 80 Possession under Section 11 of RA 9165 also includes constructive possession. There is actual possession when the drug is in the immediate physical possession or control of the accused; there is constructive possession when the drug is under the dominion and control of the accused or when he or she has the right to exercise dominion and control over the place where it is found. 81 Moreover, the accused cannot avoid conviction if his or her control and dominion over the place where the contraband is located were shared with another person. 82
In other words, an accused can be convicted for illegal possession as long as the dangerous drug is found in a place under his or her dominion or control (or has the right to exercise dominion or control over it), even if the drug was not found on the accused's actual physical possession.
Notably, in People v. Baer83(Baer), the Court acquitted an accused charged with illegal possession of dangerous drugs for failure of the prosecution to prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt. In that case, the Court was not convinced that the accused therein had constructive possession of the dangerous drug. The seized drugs were found inside a locked and sealed receptacle that was not owned, controlled, and subjected to the dominion of the accused. 84 The key that was used to open the locked box did not come from the accused; the accused was not capable of opening it. 85 Moreover, it was undisputed that the locked box belonged to another person even if found in the stall the accused rented. 86 These circumstances spawned the proverbial doubt as to whether the accused therein indeed had constructive possession of the dangerous drug, thereby resulting to his acquittal. 87
Baer therefore instructs that acquittal is proper if there is doubt as to the accused's constructive possession of the dangerous drug.
In the instant case, the Court is not convinced that Rosalie had constructive possession of the seized dangerous drug. Though there is no locked box involved here, there is definitely doubt with respect to the person who actually placed the dangerous drug on the area where it was found.
To recall, there were other people inside the house when the police officers arrived to conduct the search. This fact is undisputed. The relevant portions of the testimonies of the prosecution's witnesses state:
Direct Examination of PO1 Olasiman
Prosecutor Lumusad:
xxx xxx xxx
Q: To whom did you serve the search warrant?
A: When we arrived in the house or Rosalie Kilat in Cadawinonan Housing Project, Barangay Cadawinonan, Dumaguete City, Block 13, Lot 5, Your Honor, we observed that there were a lot of people inside, Your Honor.
Q: Then what did you do after observing that there were many people inside the house?
A: I asked someone inside, where is Rosalie? She came out and I introduced myself as PO1 Olasiman of the SOG and that we have a search warrant against her.
Q: And then what was her reaction?
A: She was surprised and she let us go inside the gate and [inside] of her house. 88
xxx xxx xxx
Cross Examination of PO1 Olasiman
Atty. Erames:
xxx xxx xxx
Q: Now you said that you served the search warrant at 2:00 o'clock in the afternoon of August 11, 2014, am I correct?
A: Yes, Your Honor.
Q: And when you reached the gate, you saw many people inside the house that was the subject of the search warrant?
A: Yes. Your Honor.
Q: How many were they?
A: There were many of them because it was her birthday, Your Honor.
Q: Her birthday?
A: Yes, Your Honor.
Q: How did you know that it was her birthday?
A: She said to me it was her birthday, Your Honor.
Q: So there were more or less fifty (50) or twenty (20) in your estimate?
A: More or less, ten (10), Your Honor.
Q: More or less, ten (10)?
A: Because there were also children in the house.
Q: They were all inside the house that is the subject of the search warrant?
A: Inside and outside of the house, Your Honor. 89
xxx xxx xxx
Q: What was the reaction of the guests of Rosalie since you said that it was incidentally her birthday?
A: Yes. They were also surprised because it was her birthday and we arrived and we read to her a search warrant.
Q: Did the guests of the accused in this case run or?
A: No, sir. They were just submissive.
Q: So you mean to say that they just stayed there after you entered the house?
A: Yes. Your Honor.
Q: And you started the conduct of the search immediately?
A: Yes, Your Honor. 90
xxx xxx xxx
Cross-examination of PO2 Banua
Atty. Erames:
xxx xxx xxx
Q: You know for a fact that when the search warrant was served, it was the birthday of the accused?
A: I do not know sir that it was the birthday of the accused.
Q: There was a celebration.
A: Yes sir, there was a celebration sir.
Q: There were many people inside the house of the accused in this case, is that correct?
A: There were people but I did not recognize them sir.
Q: But there were many.
A: I guess three (3) to four (4) persons.
Q: Not 10?
A: Because during the implementation sir, I was in the perimeter sir. I did not know how many persons were inside the house sir. 91
xxx xxx xxx
The foregoing testimonies establish that there were other people inside the house when the police officers arrived to conduct the search. They were purportedly visitors of Rosalie to celebrate her birthday. This finding of fact was confirmed by both the trial and appellate courts in their respective rulings.
As there were other people at that time, there is a likelihood that the seized dangerous drug that was found behind the Orocan cabinet was placed by another person that was in the house. Anyone present then could have placed the drug thereat without Rosalie's knowledge. To add, the police officers were not even sure if Rosalie was the one who placed the drug in the area where it was found. This was also reflected in the testimony of PO1 Olasiman, to wit:
Cross-examination of PO1 Olasiman
Atty. Erames:
xxx xxx xxx
Q: . . . You cannot tell the court with utmost certainty that, that plastic container which contained the four (4) sachets of shabu came from the accused in this case because you did not see her threw it away, am I correct?
A: Yes, Your Honor.
Q: You merely assumed that, that came from her because she was the subject of the search warrant, am I correct?
A: Yes, Your Honor. 92
xxx xxx xxx
The foregoing circumstances cast reasonable doubt on the finding that the dangerous drug was under Rosalie's constructive possession at the time of seizure. As it can happen that a different person (who was one of the guests present at the time of the search) placed the item therein at that time, it cannot be concluded with certainty that Rosalie was the one who placed the dangerous drug at the area where it was found. Indeed, an interpretation that is consistent with innocence must be adopted by the courts whenever an event is capable of interpretation of either that of guilt or of innocence.
From here, Rosalie's intent to possess the dangerous drug is doubtful. For a conviction to be proper, intent to possess must be established: the accused should have freely and consciously possessed the dangerous drug. And while it is true that intent to possess is presumed from possession of the dangerous drug, 93 it is inferred that this presumption kicks in only if possession is established. 94 As Rosalie's possession in this case was not established, her intent to possess could not therefore not presumed.
It is elementary that in criminal cases, the accused's guilt must be proved beyond reasonable doubt. 95 This burden lies with the prosecution. In this case, the prosecution was not able to establish beyond reasonable doubt that Rosalie had possession of the drug. There is no moral certainty on one of the elements of the crime charged. Rosalie's acquittal is, therefore, in order.
Considering that Rosalie's acquittal is already in order after a discussion on the element of possession, it is no longer necessary for the Court to discuss the other issues raised in the appeal briefs.
WHEREFORE, the appeal is GRANTED. The assailed March 15, 2017 Decision of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CEB-CR No. 02662 is REVERSED and SET ASIDE. Accused-appellant Rosalie Kilat y Cadavis is ACQUITTED for failure of the prosecution to prove her guilt beyond reasonable doubt. She is ordered immediately RELEASED from detention, unless she is confined for any other lawful cause.
Let a copy of this Resolution be furnished the Superintendent of the Correctional Institution for Women, Mandaluyong City, for immediate implementation. Furthermore, the Superintendent is DIRECTED to report to this Court the action he has taken within five (5) days from receipt of this Resolution.
Let entry of judgment be issued immediately.
SO ORDERED."
By authority of the Court:
(SGD.) MISAEL DOMINGO C. BATTUNG IIIDivision Clerk of Court
Footnotes
1.Rollo, pp. 5-17. Penned by Associate Justice Germano Francisco D. Legaspi and concurred in by Associate Justices Gabriel T. Ingles and Marilyn B. Lagura-Yap.
2. CA rollo, pp. 8-17. Penned by Presiding Judge Rafael Crescencio C. Tan, Jr.
3. An Act Instituting the Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002, Repealing Republic Act No. 6425, Otherwise Known as the Dangerous Drugs Act of 1972, as Amended, Providing Funds Therefor, and for Other Purposes.
4.Records, pp. 3-4.
5.Id. at 4.
6.Rollo, p. 6.
7.Id.
8.Id. at 7.
9.Id.
10. Hon. Gerardo A. Paguio, Jr.
11.Rollo, p. 7. Records, p. 39.
12.Rollo, p. 7.
13.Id.
14. CA rollo, p. 9.
15.Rollo, p. 7. Transcript of Stenographic Notes (TSN) dated July 23, 2015, pp. 7, 21-23. TSN dated July 27, 2015, p. 7.
16.Id.
17.Id.
18.Id.
19.Id.
20.Id.
21.Id.
22.Id.
23.Id.
24.Id. at 8.
25. A brand of plastic cabinet or drawer for home use.
26.Rollo, p. 8.
27.Id.
28.Id.
29.Id.
30.Id.
31.Id.
32.Id.
33.Id. TSN dated July 27, 2015, pp. 13-14, 16.
34.Id.
35.Id.
36.Id.
37.Id.
38.Id.
39.Id. at 8-9.
40.Id. at 9.
41.Id.
42.Id.
43.Id.
44.Id.
45.Id.
46.Id.
47.Id.
48.Id.
49.Id.
50.Id.
51.Id. TSN dated August 18, 2015, p. 5.
52.Id.
53. CA rollo, p. 13.
54.Id. at 14.
55.Id. at 15.
56.Id. at 15-16.
57.Id. at 16.
58.Id.
59.Id. at 16-17.
60.Id. at 29-42, 59-77.
61.Rollo, pp. 14-15.
62.Id. at 16.
63.Id. at 18-19.
64.Id. at 21-22. Penned by Associate Justice Marilyn B. Lagura-Yap, and concurred in by Associate Justices Gabriel T. Ingles and Louis P. Acosta.
65.Id. at 28-29, unpaginated pages.
66. CA rollo, p. 38.
67.Id.
68.Id. at 38-39.
69.Id. at 39.
70.Id.
71.Id.
72.Id. at 39-40.
73.Id. at 68-69.
74.Id. at 69.
75.Id. at 70-73.
76.Id. at 73-74.
77.Id. at 74-75.
78.Rollo, p. 27.
79.Plan, Jr. v. People, G.R. No. 247589, August 24, 2020.
80. See People v. Obias, Jr., G.R. No. 222187, March 25, 2019, and People v. Santos, 823 Phil. 1162, 1176 (2018).
81.People v. Baer, G.R. No. 228958, August 14, 2019.
82.People v. Magayon, G.R. No. 238873, September 16, 2020.
83.Supra note 78.
84.Id.
85.Id.
86.Id.
87.Id.
88. TSN dated July 23, 1015, p. 7. Emphasis and underscoring supplied.
89.Id. at 21-22. Emphasis and underscoring supplied.
90.Id. at 23. Emphasis and underscoring supplied.
91. TSN dated July 27, 2015, p. 7. Emphasis and underscoring supplied.
92. TSN dated July 23, 2015, p. 24.
93.People v. Quijano, G.R. No. 247558, February 19, 2020.
94. See People v. Baer, supra note 81. The case no longer tackled presumption of intent to possess after finding that possession was not established.
95. Rules of Court, Rule 133, Section 2.