Tolentino v. People

SECOND DIVISION

[G.R. No. 204345. February 6, 2013.]

EDGAR TOLENTINO, petitioner, vs. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, respondent.

NOTICE

Sirs/Mesdames :

Please take notice that the Court, Second Division, issued a Resolution dated 06 February 2013 which reads as follows:

G.R. No. 204345 (EDGAR TOLENTINO vs. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES).

For resolution of the Court is the Petition for Review on Certiorari filed by Edgar Tolentino (Edgar) assailing the Decision 1 of the Court of Appeals (CA) dated 11 September 2012 in CA-G.R. CR No. 01317. The CA affirmed the decision of the Regional Trial Court (RTC), Branch 30, Dumaguete City finding appellant guilty beyond reasonable doubt of violating Section 11, Article II of Republic Act (RA) No. 9165.

The Antecedents

Culled from the records are the following antecedent facts:

Sometime in August 2005, a discreet surveillance was conducted on Edgar after police officers received information that he was engaged in the illegal drug trade. A test buy was thereafter made by a confidential asset with a police officer nearby witnessing the whole transaction. The one heat-sealed sachet which was purchased from Edgar was subjected to a laboratory examination and it yielded positive results for the presence of Methamphetamine Hydrochloride or shabu. Thus, a search warrant was applied for by the police officers. On 15 August 2005, a search warrant was issued by Judge Rosendo Bandal, Jr. cDTHIE

On 21 August 2005, the police officers, together with NBI and PDEA operatives, served the search warrant to accused Edgar in his house in Brgy. Tubod, Looc, Dumaguete City.

The team searched the premises in the presence of representatives from the media and Barangay. During the search, the team found a cellphone, cash money in the amount of P32,000.00 and two sachets of shabu inside a soap holder. Edgar and her wife were subjected to body searches but police officers found nothing on them.

Consequently, Edgar was charged with violation of Section 11, Article II of RA No. 9165 before the RTC, Branch 30, Dumaguete City in an information that reads:

That on or about the 21st day of August 2005, in the City of Dumaguete, Philippines, and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the said accused, not being authorized by law, did then and there, willfully, unlawfully and feloniously, possess and keep two (2) transparent plastic packs containing of (sic) white crystalline substance of Methamphetamine Hydrochloride, locally known as shabu, approximately weighing a total of 1.81 grams, a dangerous drug. 2 (Italics omitted)

When arraigned, Edgar pleaded not guilty to the offense charged.

Trial ensued.

In his defense, Edgar denied the allegations against him and cried frame-up. He alleged that in the afternoon of 21 August 2005, he was at a billiard hall two (2) meters away from his house in Zone 4, Looc, Dumaguete City when he was fetched by a person who ordered him to go home since there is a search to be conducted thereat. 3 Upon entering his house, he noticed that there were many people including police officers. He was made to sit down at the sala by SPO2 Douglas Ferrer (SPO2 Ferrer) and SPO1 Dario Paquera, and thereafter the search warrant was read before him. 4 After reading the search warrant, his body was searched but police officers found nothing. While searching the ground floor, the policemen allegedly recovered money inside the cabinet. He claimed that the money recovered was owned by his sister-in-law, Josephine. 5 They then proceeded to search the second floor and also found nothing. When they all went downstairs, he was told by SPO2 Ferrer to go to the bathroom because they allegedly found shabu inside. 6 He further testified that his wife, in-laws and cousins-in-law were also called one by one and were searched inside the bathroom. 7 He contended that he never used the bathroom where the shabu was found prior to the arrival of the policemen and pointed to his sister-in-law as the last one who took a bath. 8 IcEACH

The defense likewise presented Edgar's wife and his sister-in-law but they merely corroborated accused's testimony. No other evidence was presented.

The Ruling of the RTC

The trial court found that the prosecution was able to prove the guilt of Edgar beyond reasonable doubt. Hence, he was convicted of the crime charged and sentenced to suffer the penalty of imprisonment of twelve (12) years and one (1) day, as minimum, to fourteen (14) years and eight (8) months, as maximum, and to pay a fine of P300,000.00.

Dissatisfied with the trial court's decision, Edgar went to the CA, on appeal, assigning the following error:

The honorable court-a-quo seriously erred and erred with grave abuse of discretion when it proceeded to convict the accused based on prosecution's evidence which was adulterated by violation of human rights and thus, reasonably doubtful. 9

The Ruling of the Court of Appeals

The CA affirmed the decision of the RTC, upon a finding that all of the elements of the crime have been sufficiently established by the prosecution. 10 The CA held that Edgar failed to substantiate his defenses of denial and frame-up as he did not present any evidence showing that the police officers had any ill-motive to testify against him, nor was he able to show that the police officers who apprehended him failed to perform their duties regularly. 11

Our Ruling

Petitioner Edgar submits that the CA erred when it sustained the decision of conviction by the RTC which was based on a quantum of evidence lesser than that required by law. He insists that the excesses committed by the law enforcers in the course of the service of the search warrant render the service thereof, including the items seized thereat, dubious, if not null and void. He claims that the police officers committed the following irregularities in the service of the search warrant:

1. they violated human rights when they subjected to search persons not named as respondents in the search warrant; and

2. they seized money not belonging to the accused. Such seizure was without legal basis and by reason of which the trial court ordered its return. 12 cCSDTI

The petition is bereft of merit.

The issues and arguments raised by petitioner pertaining to the factual findings of the trial court have already been considered and passed upon by the CA in its 11 September 2012 decision.

The CA gave scant consideration to the allegation of irregularity in the performance of the duties of the police officers who implemented the search. The fact that the confiscated money was ordered by the RTC to be returned to the accused does not invalidate the entire search conducted by the police officers which was otherwise found to be legal and in compliance with the procedure set by law. As explained by the trial court, the return of the money was mainly because there was insufficient evidence to link the same as proceeds of the crime. 13

All the elements of illegal possession have been proven by the prosecution. They were able to establish the following: first, during the implementation of the search warrant, two transparent plastic sachets with crystalline substance were confiscated from the accused and, when subjected to qualitative examination, were found to be positive of methamphetamine hydrochloride or shabu; second, Edgar is not authorized to possess the shabu; and lastly, the prohibited drugs were found in the soap holder inside the bathroom of the house owned by Edgar.

This Court, in the case of People v. Dela Cruz, 14 held that the possession must be with knowledge of the accused or that animus possidendi existed with the possession or control of said articles. Possession under the law includes not only actual possession but also constructive possession. Constructive possession exists when the drug is under the dominion and control of the accused or when he has the right to exercise dominion or control over the place where it is found. 15 Exclusive possession or control is not necessary. 16 The accused cannot avoid conviction if his right to exercise, control and dominion over the place, where the contraband is located, is shared with another. 17 AECcTS

On the basis of the testimonies of witnesses, it was established that accused had actual and constructive possession, control and dominion over the house searched, including the bathroom where the prohibited drugs were found. He cannot feign ignorance of the existence of the prohibited drugs since he has full access to the house, the ownership of which he never denied and was even admitted by his wife. 18

Finally, we note that the presumption of regularity in the implementation of the search warrant was bolstered by the fact that it was done in the presence of representatives from the local government and media. Further, as stressed by the CA, prior to the implementation of the search warrant, accused Edgar was positively identified by the police officers, who conducted a discreet surveillance and subsequently a test buy, as the person who sold shabu to their confidential asset. Indeed, the prosecution was able to establish that accused was engaged in the illegal drug trade.

WHEREFORE, the Court resolves to DENY the petition for failure to sufficiently show that the Court of Appeals committed any reversible error in the challenged decision as to warrant the exercise by this Court of its discretionary appellate jurisdiction in the case.

Moreover, the petition is DISMISSED for failure of petitioner to attach a certification against forum shopping as required by Rule 45, paragraph 4 (e) in relation to Rule 7, paragraph 5; Rule 56, paragraphs 4 & 5 (d); and Rule 42, paragraph 2 of the Rules of Court.

SO ORDERED.

Very truly yours,

 

(SGD.) MA. LOURDES C. PERFECTODivision Clerk of Court

 

Footnotes

1.Penned by Associate Justice Carmelita Salandanan-Manahan with Associate Justices Edgardo L. Delos Santos and Zenaida T. Galapate-Laguilles concurring. Rollo, pp. 61-78.

2.Id. at 62.

3.Id. at 68 citing TSN, 18 August 2008, pp. 4-6.

4.Id. at 68-69 citing TSN, 18 August 2008, p. 7.

5.Id. at 69 citing TSN, 18 August 2008, pp. 8-9.

6.Id. citing TSN, 18 August 2008, p. 10.

7.Id. citing TSN, 18 August 2008, p. 12.

8.Id. citing TSN, 18 August 2008, pp. 15-16.

9.Id. at 12.

10.Id. at 72-73.

11.Id. at 76-77.

12.Id. at 12.

13.Id. at 76.

14.G.R. No. 182348, 20 November 2008, 571 SCRA 469, 475 citing People v. Lagata, G.R. No. 135323, 25 June 2003, 404 SCRA 671, 675 further citing People v. Tee, G.R. Nos. 140546-47, 20 January 2003, 395 SCRA 419.

15.People v. Tira, G.R. No. 139615, 28 May 2004, 430 SCRA 134, 152.

16.Id.

17.Id.

18.Rollo, p. 74.