PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, vs.

AMADEO TIRA and CONNIE TIRA instructed his men to make an affidavit of surveillance preliminary to an application
May 28, 2004 for a search warrant.[5]
This is an appeal of the Decision[1] of the Regional Trial Court of Pangasinan, Branch On March 6, 1998, SPO3 Asidelio Manibog, PO3 Efren Abad de Vera, SPO1 Renato
46, finding appellants Amadeo Tira and Connie Tira guilty beyond reasonable doubt of Cresencia and PO2 Reynaldo Soliven Javonilla, Jr. executed an Affidavit of Surveillance,
violating Section 16, in relation to Section 20, Article III of Republic Act No. 6425, alleging, inter alia, that they were members of the Drug Enforcement Unit of
known as the Dangerous Drugs Act of 1972, as amended by Rep. Act No. 7659, Urdaneta, Pangasinan, and that in the evening of February 24, 1998, they confirmed
sentencing each of them to suffer the penalty of reclusion perpetua and ordering each reports of illegal drug-related activities in the house of the spouses Amadeo and
of them to pay a fine of P1,000.000.[2] Connie Tira.[6] On March 6, 1998[7] Police Chief Inspector Danilo Bumatay Datu filed an
The Indictment Application for a Search Warrant in the Municipal Trial Court of Urdaneta, Pangasinan,
The appellants Amadeo Tira and Connie Tira were charged in an Information which attaching thereto the affidavit of surveillance executed by his men and a sketch of the
reads: place to be searched.[8]
That on or about March 9, 1998, in the Municipality of Urdaneta, province of Satisfied with the testimonies of SPO3 Manibog, PO3 de Vera, SPO1 Cresencia and PO2
Pangasinan and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the above-named Javonilla, Jr., Judge Aurora A. Gayapa issued a search warrant commanding the
accused, conspiring together, did then and there willfully, unlawfully and feloniously applicants to make an immediate search of the Tira residence at anytime of the day or
have in their possession, control and custody the following: night, particularly the first room on the right side, and the two rooms located at Perez
- Three (3) (sic) sachets of shabu south, and forthwith seize and take possession of the following items:
- Six (6) pieces opened sachets of shabu residue 1. Poor Mans Cocaine known as Shabu;
- One (1) brick of dried marijuana leaves 2. Drug-Usage Paraphernalia; and
weighing 721 grams 3. Weighing scale.[9]
- Six disposable lighter P/Sr. Inspector Ludivico Bravo, and as head of the team, with SPO3 Cariaga, PO3
- One (1) roll Aluminum Foil Concepcion, Cario, Galima, Villaroya, Andaya, SPO1 Mario Tajon, SPO1 Asterio
- Several empty plastics (tea bag) Dismaya, SPO1 Renato Cresencia, and PO3 Reynaldo Javonillo were directed to
- Cash money amounting to P12,536.00 in implement the search warrant.[10] They responded and brought Barangay
different denominations believed to be proceeds Kagawad Mario Conwi to witness the search.[11] At 2:35 p.m. on March 9, 1998, the
of the contraband. team proceeded to the Tira residence. The men found Ernesto Tira, the father of
without first securing the necessary permit/license to possess the same. Amadeo, at the porch of the house. They introduced themselves and told Ernesto that
CONTRARY to SEC. 8 in relation to Sec. 20 of RA 6425, as amended.[3] they had a warrant authorizing them to search the premises. Ernesto led them
The Case for the Prosecution[4] inside. The policemen found the newly awakened Amadeo inside the first room [12]of
In the evening of February 24, 1998, SPO3 Asidelio Manibog received a verbal the house.[13] With Barangay Kagawad Conwi and Amadeo Tira, the policemen
instruction from the Chief of Police Superintendent Wilson R. Victorio to conduct proceeded to search the first room to the right (an inner room) and found the
surveillance operations on the house of Amadeo Tira and Connie Tira at Perez following under the bed where Amadeo slept:[14]
Extension Street because of reported rampant drug activities in the said area. 1. 9 pcs. suspected methamphetamine hydrochloride
Manibog formed a team composed of SPO1 Renato Cresencia, PO3 Reynaldo Javonilla, placed in heat-sealed transparent plastic sachets
Jr. and PO3 Efren Abad de Vera to conduct the ordered surveillance. 2. roll aluminum foil
At around 8:00 p.m., the group, clad in civilian clothes, arrived at Perez Extension 3. several empty plastic transparent
Street. As they stationed themselves in the periphery of a store, they observed that 4. used and unused aluminum foil[15]
more than twenty persons had gone in and out of the Tira residence. They confronted 5. disposable lighters
one of them, and asked what was going on inside the house. The person revealed that 6. 1 sachet of shabu confiscated from Nelson Tira[16]
Amadeo Tira sold shabu, and that he was a regular customer. The group went closer They also found cash money amounting to P12,536 inside a shoulder bag placed on
to the house and started planning their next move. They wanted to pose as buyers, top of the television, in the following denominations:
but hesitated, for fear of being identified as PNP members. Instead, they stayed there 1 pc. -P1,000.00 bill
up to 12:00 midnight and continued observing the place. Convinced that illegal 4 pcs. - 500.00 bill
activities were going on in the house, the policemen returned to the station and 52 pcs. - 100.00 bill
reported to P/Supt. Wilson R. Victorio. After hearing their report, P/Supt. Victorio 36 pcs. - 50.00 bill
 100 pcs. - 20.00 bill The Case for Accused Amadeo Tira[29]
53 pcs. - 10.00 bill Amadeo Tira denied the charge. He testified that he was a furniture delivery
1 pc. - 5.00 bill boy[30] who owned a one-storey bungalow house with two bedrooms and one masters
1 pc. - 1.00 coin[17] bedroom. There was also another room which was divided into an outer and inner
The policemen listed the foregoing items they found in the house. Amadeos picture room; the latter room had no windows or ventilation. The house stood twenty meters
was taken while he was signing the said certification.[18]Ernesto (Amadeos father), also away from Perez Extension Street in Urdaneta, Pangasinan, and could be reached only
witnessed the certification. by foot.[31] He leased the room located at the western portion to his nephew Chris
A joint affidavit of arrest was, thereafter, executed by SPO3 Asidelio Manibog, SPO1 Tira[32] and the latters live-in-partner Gemma Lim for four hundred pesos a
Mario C. Tajon, SPO1 Asterio T. Dismaya, SPO1 Renato M. Cresencia and PO3 Reynaldo month.[33] Chris and Gemma were engaged in the buying and selling of bananas. He
S. Javonilla, Jr. for the apprehension of Amadeo Tira and Nelson Tira who were brought denied that there were young men coming in and out of his house.[34]
to the police station for custodial investigation. The articles seized were turned over In the afternoon of March 6, 1998, he was in his house sleeping when the policemen
to the PNP Crime Laboratory, Urdaneta Sub-Office, for examination.[19] In turn, a barged into his house. He heard a commotion and went out of the room to see what
laboratory examination request was made to the Chief of the Philippine National it was all about, and saw police officers Cresencia, Javonilla and Bergonia, searching
Police Service-1, Sub-Office, Urdaneta, Pangasinan for the following: the room of his nephew, Chris Tira. He told them to stop searching so that he could
a. Three (3) sachets of suspected methamphetamine contact his father, Ernesto, who in turn, would call the barangay captain. The
hydrochloride approximately 0.5 grams; policemen continued with their search. He was then pulled inside the room and the
b. Six (6) opened sachets of suspected methamphetamine policemen showed him the items they allegedly found.[35]
hydrochloride (SHABU) residue; Barangay Kagawad Mario Conwi testified that on March 9, 1998, while he was at Calle
c. Twenty-four (4) pieces of dried marijuana leaves sachet; Perez, Urdaneta, Pangasinan, Capt. Ludivico Bravo asked to be accompanied to the
and Tira residence. Capt. Bravo was with at least ten other policemen. As they parked the
d. One (1) heat-sealed plastic sachet of suspected car at Calle Perez, the policemen saw a man running towards the direction of the
methamphetamine hydrochloride confiscated from the ricefields. Kagawad Conwi and some of the policemen chased the man, who turned
possession of Nelson Tira.[20] out to be Nelson Tira.One of the policemen pointed to a sachet of shabu which fell to
On March 10, 1998, P/Supt. Wilson R. Victorio executed a Compliance/Return of the ground near Nelson. The policemen arrested him and proceeded to the house of
Search Warrant.[21] Amadeo Tira to serve the warrant.[36] When they reached the house, the other
On March 17, 1998, the PNP Crime Laboratory Group in Physical Science Report No. policemen were waiting. He saw Amadeo and Connie Tira sitting by the door of the
DT-057-98 reported that the test conducted by Police Superintendent/Chemist house in the sala. Thereafter, he and the policemen started the search.[37] They
Theresa Ann Bugayong-Cid,[22] yielded positive for methamphetamine hydrochloride searched the first room located at the right side (if facing south),[38] and found
(shabu) and marijuana. The report contained the following findings: marijuana, shabu, money and some paraphernalia.[39] An inventory of the items seized
A1 to A3, B1 to B6, E POSITIVE to the test for methamphetamine hydrochloride was made afterwards, which was signed by Capt. Bravo and Ernesto Tira.[40]
(shabu), a regulated drug. Alfonso Gallardo, Amadeos neighbor, testified that he was the one who constructed
C and D1 to D4 POSITIVE to the test for marijuana, a prohibited drug. the Tira residence and that the house initially had two rooms.The first room was
CONCLUSION: rented out, while the second room was occupied by the Spouses Amadeo and Connie
Specimens A1 to A3, B1 to B6 and E contain methamphetamine hydrochloride Tira.[41] Subsequently, a divider was placed inside the first room.[42] He also testified
(Shabu) and specimens C and D1 to D24 contain marijuana.[23] that his house was only three (3) meters away from that of the Tiras, and that only a
A criminal complaint was filed by P/Supt. Wilson R. Victorio against Amadeo Tira and toilet separated their houses.[43] He denied that there were many people going in and
Connie Tira on March 10, 1998 for violation of Rep. Act No. 6425, as amended.[24] After out of the Tira residence.[44]
finding probable cause, Assistant Provincial Prosecutor Rufino A. Moreno filed an The Ruling of the Trial Court
Information against the Tira Spouses for illegal possession of shabu and marijuana, in The trial court rendered judgment on September 24, 1998, finding Amadeo Tira guilty
violation of Section 8, in relation to Section 20 of Rep. Act No. 6425.[25] A warrant of beyond reasonable doubt of illegal possession of 807.3 grams of marijuana and 1.001
arrest was issued against Connie Tira on May 13, 1998. However, when the policemen gram of shabu. The decretal portion of its decision is herein quoted:
tried to serve the said warrant, she could not be found in the given address.[26]She was WHEREFORE, JUDGMENT is hereby rendered CONVICTING beyond reasonable doubt
arrested only on October 6, 1998.[27] accused AMADEO TIRA for Illegal Possession of Marijuana weighing 807.3 grams and
During the trial, the court conducted an ocular inspection of the Tira residence.[28] shabu weighing 1.001 gram penalized under Article III, Sections 16 and 20, of
Republic Act 6425, known as [the] Dangerous Drugs Act of 1972, as amended by by one of their boarders. They arrested Amadeo, and her brother-in-law, Nelson Tira,
Republic Act 7659. The Court sentences Amadeo Tira to suffer the penalty of and brought them to the police station. The boarders, however, were not arrested.
Reclusion Perpetua and a fine of P1,000,000.00. Joy Fernandez, a neighbor of the Tiras, lived approximately ten meters away from the
The amount of P12,536.00 is hereby forfeited in favor of the government which latter. Since they had no television, she frequently went to her neighbors house to
forms part of the fine; the marijuana weighing 807.3 grams and shabu weighing watch certain programs. In the afternoon of March 9, 1998, she was at the Tira
1.001 gram are hereby forfeited in favor of the government; the disposable lighter residence watching Mirasol, while Connie was in the kitchen nursing her
and the aluminum foil are likewise forfeited in favor of the government. baby. Suddenly, about five or ten persons ran inside the house and handcuffed
The Branch Clerk of Court of this Court is hereby ordered to prepare the mittimus. Amadeo Tira.[52]
The Warden, Bureau of Jail Management and Penology (BJMP) is hereby ordered to The Ruling of the Trial Court
transmit the person of Amadeo Tira to the National Bilibid Prison with proper escort The trial court found Connie Tira guilty beyond reasonable doubt of illegal possession
within fifteen (15) days upon receipt of this Order.[45] of 807.3 grams of marijuana and 1.001 gram of shabu. The dispositive portion of the
The trial court upheld the validity of Search Warrant No. 3 issued by Judge Aurora decision reads:
Gayapa. It found Amadeos defense, that the room where the items were seized was WHEREFORE, JUDGMENT is hereby rendered CONVICTING beyond reasonable doubt
rented out to the couple Cris Tira and Gemma Lim, unsubstantiated. It held that accused CONNIE TIRA for Illegal Possession of Marijuana weighing 807.3 grams and
Amadeo, as owner of the house, had control over the room as well as the things found shabu weighing 1.001 gram penalized under Article III, Section 16 and 20, of Republic
therein and that the inner room was a secret and practical place to keep marijuana, Act 6425, known as [the] Dangerous Drugs Act of 1972, as amended by Republic Act
shabu and related paraphernalia.[46] 7659, the Court sentences Connie Tira to suffer the penalty of Reclusion Perpetua
Amadeo appealed the decision.[47] and a fine of P1,000,000.00.
The Case Against Connie Tira The amount of P12,536.00 is hereby forfeited in favor of the government which
After her arrest, Connie filed a motion to quash search warrant,[48] alleging that the forms part of the fine; the marijuana weighing 807.3 grams and shabu weighing
police officers who applied for the said warrant did not have any personal knowledge 1.001 gram are hereby forfeited in favor of the government; the disposable lighter
of the reported illegal activities. She contended that the same was issued in violation and the aluminum foil are, likewise, forfeited in favor of the government.
of Section 4, Rule 126 of the Rules of Court, as the judge issued the search warrant The Warden, Bureau of Jail Management and Penology (BJMP) is hereby ordered to
without conducting searching questions and answers, and without attaching the transmit the person of Connie Tira to the National Bilibid Prisons with proper escort
records of the proceedings. Moreover, the search warrant issued was in the nature of within fifteen (15) days upon receipt of his Order.[53]
a general warrant, to justify the fishing expedition conducted on the premises. The trial court did not believe that Connie Tira had no knowledge, control and
On October 26, 1998, the presiding judge ordered Judge Aurora A. Gayapa to forward possession of the shabu and marijuana found in the first or inner room of their
the stenographic notes of the applicant and the witnesses.[49] Connie was arraigned house. It stressed that Connie and Amadeo Tira jointly controlled and possessed the
on November 9, 1998, pending the resolution of the motion. She pleaded not guilty to shabu and marijuana that the policemen found therein. It ratiocinated that it was
the charge of illegal possession of shabu and marijuana.[50] The trial court thereafter unusual for a wife not to know the existence of prohibited drugs in the conjugal
issued an Order on November 11, 1998, denying the motion to quash.[51] It did not abode. Thus, as husband and wife, the accused conspired and confederated with each
give credence to the allegations of Connie Tira, and found that Judge Gayapa issued other in keeping custody of the said prohibited articles.[54] The court also held that
the search warrant after conducting searching questions, and in consideration of the Connie Tiras flight from their house after the search was an indication of her
affidavit of witness Enrique Milad. guilt. Connie, likewise, appealed the decision.[55]
Connie testified that she was engaged in the business of buying and selling of fruits,
while her husband was employed at the Glasshouse Trading.One of the rooms in their The Present Appeal
house was occupied by their three boarders, two male persons and one female. In their brief, the appellants Amadeo and Connie Tira assigned the following errors
In the afternoon of March 9, 1998, she and her husband Amadeo were in their house, committed by the trial court:
while their boarders were in their respective rooms. At 2:30 p.m., she was in the I THE TRIAL COURT ERRED IN CONVICTING ACCUSED-APPELLANTS DESPITE FAILURE
kitchen taking care of her one-year-old child. She had other three children, aged eight, ON THE PART OF THE PROSECUTION TO PROVE THEIR GUILT BEYOND REASONABLE
four, and three, respectively, who were watching television. Her husband Amadeo was DOUBT.
sleeping in one of the rooms. Suddenly, five policemen barged into their house and II THE TRIAL COURT ERRED IN NOT HOLDING THAT THE SEARCH WAS ILLEGALLY MADE.
searched all the rooms. The policemen found and seized articles in the room occupied
III ASSUMING THAT ACCUSED-APPELLANT AMADEO TIRA IS GUILTY AS CHARGED, THE A Lighter, Sir.
TRIAL COURT ERRED IN HOLDING THAT THERE WAS A CONSPIRACY BETWEEN HIM COURT:
AND HIS WIFE CONNIE TIRA.[56] Q If that shabu will be shown to you, could you identify the same?
The Court shall resolve the assigned errors simultaneously as they are interrelated. WITNESS:
The appellants contend that the search conducted by the policemen in the room A Yes, Sir.
occupied by Chris and Gemma Lim, where the articles and substances were found by Q About the marijuana leaves, if shown to you could you identify the
the policemen, was made in their absence. Thus, the search was made in violation of same?
Section 7, Rule 126 of the Rules of Criminal Procedure, which provides: A Yes, Sir.
SEC. 7. Search of house, room, or premise, to be made in presence of two PROS. DUMLAO:
witnesses. No search of house, room, or any other premise shall be made except in Q What else did you find out aside from the marijuana leaves, shabu
the presence of the lawful occupant thereof or any member of his family or in the and lighter?
absence of the latter, in the presence of two witnesses of sufficient age and A I have here the list, Sir.
discretion residing in the same locality. One (1) brick of marijuana
The appellants posit that the articles and substances found by the policemen in their 24 pcs. tea bag of marijuana
house are inadmissible in evidence, being the fruits of a poisonous tree. Hence, they 9 pcs. sachets of suspected shabu
contend, they should have been acquitted of the crime charged. The appellants 6 disposable lighters
further assert that the prosecution failed to prove that they owned the prohibited 1 roll of aluminum foil
drugs, and that the same were in their possession and control when found by the several empty plastic; several used
policemen. They insist that it cannot be presumed that they were in control and and unused aluminum foil
possession of the said substances/articles simply because they owned the house one (1) sachet of shabu confiscated from Nelson Tira; and
where the same were found, considering that the room was occupied by Chris Tira P12,536.00 cash in different denominations proceeds of the contrand
and his live-in partner, Gemma Lim. (sic).
The appellant Connie Tira avers that she never fled from their house after the COURT:
policemen had conducted the search. Neither was she arrested by the policemen Q Where did you find the money?
when they arrested her husband. A Near the marijuana at the bag, Sir.
The appeals have no merit. Q About the money, could you still identify if shown to you?
Contrary to the appellants claim, appellant Amadeo Tira was present when the A Yes, Sir.
policemen searched the inner room of the house. The articles and substances were Q When you found shabu, lighter, marijuana, and money, what did
found under the bed on which the appellant Amadeo Tira slept. The policemen did not you do?
find the said articles and substances in any other room in the house: A We marked them, Sir.
Q So when you reached the house of Amadeo Tira at the Tiras Q All of the items?
compound, you saw the father and you told him you are A Only the marijuana, Sir.
implementing the Search Warrant and your group was allowed to Q What mark did you place?
enter and you are allowed to search in the presence of Amadeo Tira? A My signature, Sir.[57]
A Yes, Sir. PROS. TOMBOC:
PROS. DUMLAO Q And when you were allowed to enter the house, did you notice who
Q In the course of your search, what did you find? was present?
WITNESS: A I noticed the presence of Connie Tira, Sir.
A We found out suspected marijuana leaves, Sir. Q When you said Connie Tira, is she the same Connie Tira the accused
Q Where, in what particular place did you find? in this case?
A Under the bed inside the room of Amadeo Tira, Sir A Yes, Sir, she was taking care of the baby.
Q What else did you find aside from marijuana leaves? Q Who else?
A We also find suspected sachet of shabu, Sir. A We also noticed the presence of Amadeo Tira, Sir.
Q What else? Q What was he doing there?
 A He was newly awake, Sir. the room at the time of the search. And why did not Amadeo Tira supply the police
Q Upon entering the house, what did you do? officers of the personal identities and address where they could find Chris Tira and
A We entered and searched the first room, Sir. Gemma Lim at the time of the search. If they were banana dealers, they must be
Q What did you find out? selling their banana in the market and they could have pointed them in the
A Shabu and Marijuana and paraphernalia, Sir. market.[60]
Q Are you one of those who entered the house? We are in full accord with the trial court. It bears stressing that the trial court
A Yes, Sir. conducted an ocular inspection of the house of the appellants, and thus, had first hand
Q Can you mention to the Honorable Court those items that you knowledge of the layout of the house. Besides, the testimony of the appellant Amadeo
searched in the house of Connie Tira and Amadeo Tira? Tira, that the inner room was occupied by Chris Tira and Gemma Lim who were not
A As per in (sic) our records, we found three (3) sachets containing there when the search was conducted, is belied by the testimony of the appellant
suspected Methamphetamine Hydrochloride Shabu residue; one (1) Connie Tira that the room was occupied by two male and one female boarders who
brick of suspected dried marijuana leaves weighing more or less 750 were in the room when the policemen searched it. Thus:
grams; twenty-four (24) tea bags containing dried marijuana leaves; Q You said that while taking care of your baby, several policemen
six (6) disposable lighter; one (1) roll aluminum foil; several empty barged [sic] your house?
plastics (tea bag); several used and unused aluminum foil; and cash A Yes, Sir.
money amounting to P12,536.00 in different denominations Q And they proceeded to your room where your husband was
believe[d] to be proceeds of the contraband, Sir. sleeping at that time?
Q You said you recovered one (1) brick of marijuana leaves, showing A Yes, Sir.
to you a (sic) one (1) brick suspected to be marijuana leaves, is this Q And it is in that room where your husband was sleeping and where
the one you are referring to? those articles were taken?
A Yes, Sir, this is the one.[58] A No, Sir.
Appellant Amadeo Tira was not the only witness to the search; Kagawad Mario Conwi Q Where are (sic) those things came (sic) from?
and Ernesto Tira, Amadeos father, were also present. Ernesto Tira even led the A At the room where my boarders occupied, Sir.
policemen inside the house. This is evidenced not only by the testimony Q So, at that time where were those boarders?
of Kagawad Conwi, but also by the certification signed by the appellant himself, along A They were inside their room, Sir.
with Kagawad Conwi and Ernesto Tira.[59] Q How many of them?
The trial court rejected the testimony of appellant Amadeo Tira that the inner room A Two (2) male persons and one woman, Sir.
searched by the policemen was occupied by Chris Tira and his girlfriend Gemma Lim Q And do you know their whereabout[s], Madam Witness?
with the following encompassing disquisition: A No more, Sir.
The defense contention that a couple from Baguio City first occupied the first room, Q When did they leave, Madam Witness?
the Court is not persuaded because they did not present said businessmen A At that time, they left the house, Sir.
from Baguio City who were engaged in vegetable business. Secondly, the same room Q They were not investigated by the police?
was rented by Chris Tira and Gemma Lim. Chris Tira and Gemma Lim, engaged in A No, Sir.[61]
banana business, were not presented in Court. If it were true that Chris Tira and We agree with the finding of the trial court that the only occupants of the house when
Gemma Lim were the supposed lessees of the room, they should have been the policemen conducted their search were the appellants and their young children,
apprehended by the searching party on March 9, 1998, at about 2:30 p.m. There was and that the appellants had no boarders therein.
no proof showing that Chris Tira and Gemma Lim ever occupied the room, like Before the accused may be convicted of violating Section 8 of Republic Act No. 6425,
personal belongings of Chris Tira and Gemma Lim. The defense did not even show as amended by Rep. Act No. 7659, the prosecution is burdened to prove beyond
proof showing that Chris Tira reside in the first room, like clothings, toothbrush, reasonable doubt the essential elements of the crime, viz: (1) the actual possession of
soap, shoes and other accessories which make them the residents or occupants of an item or object which is identified to be a prohibited drug; (2) such possession is not
the room. There were no kitchen plates, spoons, powder, or soap evidencing that authorized by law; and, (3) the accused freely or consciously possessed the said
the said room was occupied by Chris Tira and Gemma Lim. Amadeo Tira contended drug.[62]
that Chris Tira and Gemma Lim are engaged in banana business. There are no The essential elements of the crime of possession of regulated drugs are the following:
banana stored in the room at the time of the search and both of them were out of (a) the accused is found in possession of a regulated drug; (b) the person is not
authorized by law or by duly constituted authorities; and, (c) the accused has The trial court convicted the appellants of violating Section 16, in relation to Section
knowledge that the said drug is a regulated drug.This crime is mala prohibita, and, as 20, of Rep. Act No. 6425, as amended. The Office of the Solicitor General (OSG) asserts
such, criminal intent is not an essential element. However, the prosecution must that the appellants should be convicted of violating Section 8 of Rep. Act No. 6425, as
prove that the accused had the intent to possess (animus posidendi) the amended. We do not agree with the trial court and the OSG. We find and so hold that
drugs. Possession, under the law, includes not only actual possession, but also the appellants are guilty of two separate crimes: (a) possession of regulated drugs
constructive possession.Actual possession exists when the drug is in the immediate under Section 16, in relation to Section 20, of Rep. Act No. 6425, as amended, for their
physical possession or control of the accused.[63] On the other hand, constructive possession of methamphetamine hydrochloride, a regulated drug; and, (b) violation
possession exists when the drug is under the dominion and control of the accused or of Section 8, in relation to Section 20 of the law, for their possession of marijuana, a
when he has the right to exercise dominion and control over the place where it is prohibited drug. Although only one Information was filed against the appellants,
found.[64] Exclusive possession or control is not necessary.[65] The accused cannot nevertheless, they could be tried and convicted for the crimes alleged therein and
avoid conviction if his right to exercise control and dominion over the place where the proved by the prosecution. In this case, the appellants were charged for violation of
contraband is located, is shared with another.[66] possession of marijuana and shabu in one Information which reads:
Thus, conviction need not be predicated upon exclusive possession, and a showing of That on or about March 9, 1998, in the Municipality of Urdaneta, province of
non-exclusive possession would not exonerate the accused.[67] Such fact of possession Pangasinan, and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the above-named
may be proved by direct or circumstantial evidence and any reasonable inference accused, conspiring together, did then and there willfully, unlawfully and feloniously
drawn therefrom. However, the prosecution must prove that the accused had have in their possession, control and custody the following:
knowledge of the existence and presence of the drug in the place under his control - Three (3) pieces (sic) sachets of shabu
and dominion and the character of the drug.[68] Since knowledge by the accused of the - Six (6) pieces opened sachets of shabu residue
existence and character of the drugs in the place where he exercises dominion and - One (1) brick of dried marijuana leaves weighing 721 grams
control is an internal act, the same may be presumed from the fact that the dangerous - Twenty-four (24) tea bags of dried marijuana leaves
drug is in the house or place over which the accused has control or dominion, or within weighing 86.3 grams
such premises in the absence of any satisfactory explanation.[69] - Six [6] disposable lighter
In this case, the prohibited and regulated drugs were found under the bed in the inner - One (1) roll Aluminum foil
room of the house of the appellants where they also resided. The appellants had - Several empty plastics (tea bag)
actual and exclusive possession and control and dominion over the house, including - Cash money amounting to P12,536.00 in different
the room where the drugs were found by the policemen. The appellant Connie Tira denominations believed to be proceeds of the contraband.
cannot escape criminal liability for the crime charged simply and merely on her Without first securing the necessary permit/license to posses[s] the same.
barefaced testimony that she was a plain housewife, had no involvement in the CONTRARY TO SEC. 8, in relation to Sec. 20 of R.A. 6425, as amended.[70]The
criminal actuations of her husband, and had no knowledge of the existence of the Information is defective because it charges two crimes. The appellants should have
drugs in the inner room of the house. She had full access to the room, including the filed a motion to quash the Information under Section 3, Rule 117 of the Revised
space under the bed. She failed to adduce any credible evidence that she was Rules of Court before their arraignment. They failed to do so. Hence, under Rule 120,
prohibited by her husband, the appellant Amadeo Tira, from entering the room, Section 3 of the said rule, the appellants may be convicted of the crimes charged.
cleaning it, or even sleeping on the bed. We agree with the findings and disquisition The said Rule provides:
of the trial court, viz: SEC. 3. Judgment for two or more offenses. - When two or more offenses are charged
The Court is not persuaded that Connie Tira has no knowledge, control and in a single complaint or information but the accused fails to object to it before trial,
possession of the shabu and marijuana (Exhibits M, N, O and P) found in their the court may convict him of as many offenses as are charged and proved, and
room.Connie Tira and Amadeo Tira jointly control and possess the shabu (Exhibits M impose on him the penalty for each offense, setting out separately the findings of
and N) and marijuana (Exhibits O and P) found in the room of their house. It is fact and law in each offense.
unusual for a wife not to know the existence in their conjugal abode, the questioned The Proper Penalties On the Appellants
shabu and marijuana. The husband and wife (Amadeo and Connie) conspired and The crime of violation of Section 8, Article II of Rep. Act No. 6425, as amended, for
confederated with each other the keeping and custody of said prohibited illegal possession of 807.3 grams of marijuana, a prohibited drug, is punishable
articles. Both of them are deemed in possession of said articles in violation of R.A. by reclusion perpetua to death. Considering that there are no qualifying
6425, Section 8, in relation to Section 20. circumstances, the appellants are sentenced to suffer the penalty of reclusion
The Crimes Committed by the Appellants
perpetua, conformably to Article 63 of the Revised Penal Code and are ordered to pay 3. One roll/stick of dried Indian hemp (marijuana) leaves weighing 0.2 gram; and
a fine of P500,000.00. 4. One small plastic sachet containing white crystalline granules believed to be shabu,
Under Section 16, Article III of Rep. Act No. 6425, as amended, the imposable penalty weighing 0.05 grams.[4]
of possession of a regulated drug, less than 200 grams, in this case, shabu, is prision Police Superintendent Virgilio T. Ranes, Dipolog City Chief of Police, filed two criminal
correccional to reclusion perpetua. Based on the quantity of the regulated drug complaints for violation of Section 8, Article II and Section 16, Article III of Republic Act
subject of the offense, the imposable penalty shall be as follows: No. 6425[5] (RA 6425), as amended, against private respondent. After preliminary
QUANTITY IMPOSABLE PENALTY investigation, State Prosecutor Rodrigo T. Eguia filed two Informations before the
Less than one (1) gram to 49.25 grams prision correccional Regional Trial Court in Dipolog City:
49.26 grams to 98.50 grams prision mayor Criminal Case No. 9272
98.51 grams to 147.75 grams reclusion temporal INFORMATION
147.76 grams to 199 grams reclusion perpetua The undersigned Prosecutor of Region 9 accuses DANTE MAH y Cabilin of the crime of
Considering that the regulated drug found in the possession of the appellants is only VIOLATION OF SECTION 16, ARTICLE III of R.A. 6425, as amended, committed as
1.001 grams, the imposable penalty for the crime is prision correccional. Applying the follows:
Indeterminate Sentence Law, the appellants are sentenced to suffer an indeterminate That on October 6, 1999 at 10:30, more or less at corner Quezon Avenue
penalty of from four (4) months and one (1) day of arresto mayor in its medium period and Mabini Streets, Barra, Dipolog City, Philippines, and within the jurisdiction of this
as minimum, to three (3) years of prision correccional in its medium period as Honorable Court, the above-named accused, knowing fully well that unauthorized
maximum, for violation of Section 16 of Rep. Act No. 6425, as amended. possession and control of regulated drug is punishable by law, did then and there
IN LIGHT OF ALL THE FOREGOING, appellants Amadeo and Connie Tira are found willfully, unlawfully and feloniously have in his possession and control Thirty Two (32)
GUILTY beyond reasonable doubt of violating Section 8, Article II of Rep. Act No. 6425, pieces small plastic sachets and six (6) pieces big plastic sachet containing
as amended, and are hereby sentenced to suffer the penalty of reclusion Methamphetamine Hydrochloride, more popularly known as shabu, weighing a total
perpetua, and ORDERED to pay a fine of P1,000,000.00. The said appellants are, of 6.4 grams, without any legal authority to possess the same, in gross Violation of
likewise, found GUILTY beyond reasonable doubt of violating Section 16, Article III of Section 16, Article III, of R.A. 6425, as amended.
Rep. Act No. 6425, as amended, and are sentenced to suffer an indeterminate penalty CONTRARY TO LAW.[6]
of from Four (4) Months and One (1) Day of arresto mayor in its medium period as Criminal Case No. 9279
minimum, to Three (3) years of prision correccional, in its medium period, as INFORMATION
maximum. The undersigned State Prosecutor of Region 9 accuses DANTE MAH
y Cabilin alias Dodoy Mah of the crime of Violation of Section 8, Article II of Republic
PEOPLE VS. HON. MARCIAL G. EMPLEO, Act No. 6425, as amended, committed as follows:
September 27, 2006 That on October 6, 1999 at 10:30 in the morning, more or less, at
This petition for review on certiorari[1] seeks to reverse the Decision[2] promulgated corner Quezon Avenue and Mabini Streets, Barra, Dipolog City, Philippines, and
on 19 June 2001 of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. SPNo. 59269. The Court of Appeals within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the above-named accused, knowing
affirmed the Resolution and Order of Judge Marcial G. Empleo (Judge Empleo) of the fully well that possession and use of prohibited drugs is punishable by law, did then
Regional Trial Court of Dipolog City, Branch 9 (trial court), directing the prosecutor to and there willfully, unlawfully and feloniously have in his possession and control One
amend the two Informations filed by filing only a single Information. (1) roll/stick dried marijuana leaves, without legal authority to possess the same, in
The Facts: On 6 October 1999, a search warrant[3] was issued for the search and gross Violation of Section 8, Article II of Republic Act No. 6425, as amended.
seizure of shabu and paraphernalia at the room rented by private respondent CONTRARY TO LAW.[7]
Dante Mah (private respondent) at the LS Lodge located at the corner Upon his arraignment on 28 October 1999, private respondent pleaded not guilty to
of Quezon Avenue and Mabini Street in Dipolog City. the two charges.
During the search, the police officers seized the following from private respondents On 17 February 2000, private respondent filed a motion[8] to dismiss Criminal Case
room: No. 9279. Private respondent alleged that the single act of possession of drugs
1. Thirty-two small plastic sachets containing white crystalline granules believed to committed at the same time and at the same place cannot be the subject of two
be shabu, weighing 2 grams; separate Informations. Since the prosecution already filed Criminal Case No.
2. Six big plastic sachets containing white crystalline granules believed to be shabu, 9272, then the filing of Criminal Case No. 9279 is tantamount to splitting a single cause
weighing 4.4 grams; of action into two separate cases.
 The prosecution opposed the motion, claiming that unauthorized possession denied that only one violation [was] committed under the Dangerous Drugs Act, which
of marijuana and shabu are punishable under Section 8, Article II and Section 16, is the possession of dangerous drugs. It is not controverted that at the time of the
Article III of RA 6425. Hence, these acts constitute two separate and distinct offenses apprehension, what was found in his possession were [a] marijuana and shabu. We
with separate penalties.[9] shall not discount the fact that the circumstances surrounding the search and seizure
In a Resolution[10] dated 3 April 2000, Judge Empleo directed the prosecutor to file point to none other but a single intent to possess a dangerous drug; not to mention
only a single Information. The Resolution reads in part: that there is only one occasion, as compared to other cases wherein the alleged
It is to be noted that the stuffs, SHABU and Marijuana Leaves are all prohibited and offense happened on different occasions, that with respect to the latter situation
regulated drugs. But what is important is that the search and seizure was done at one clearly it may not be said [that] there is only one intent. It can be inferred from the
time, the same place and at one occasion. Hence, there could be no two crimes action of the accused and the surrounding circumstances that there was clearly one
committed, regardless of the two kinds of prohibited/regulated drugs that were act intended by the former to perpetrate; it is apparent, that the accused seems to
confiscated from the accused. There is in this case a clear case of splitting one single have a single intention, which is his intention to possess the said dangerous drugs.
criminal act into two separate crimes. Thus, not just because it involves two different kinds of dangerous drugs make the said
Considering, however, that the penalty of this kind of offenses are based on the act to constitute two offenses. As has been repeatedly said by this Court, dangerous
number of grams of the regulated/prohibited drugs, instead of having these cases drugs refer to both prohibited and regulated drug.
dismissed, the Office of the City Prosecutor of Dipolog City is hereby directed to xxxx
amend its information by filing one single information.[11] Petitioner contends that since there are two acts of possession, one is possession of
The prosecution filed a motion for reconsideration,[12] arguing that violation of any of a prohibited drug and the other is possession of a regulated drug, for that reason,
the provisions of RA 6425 constitutes a separate and distinct offense. The prosecution there are two separate offenses that the accused may be held liable for. Petitioner
maintained that private respondent cannot be charged with violating Articles II and III puts forward the argument that it is immaterial that the marijuana and shabu were
of RA 6425 in one Information because that would be tantamount to charging him seized in the same place and on the same occasion. Petitioner further asserts that
with more than one offense in a single Information. The trial court denied the motion since two separate provisions of the Dangerous Drugs Act were violated,
in an Order[13] dated 2 May 2000. concomitantly, herein private respondent may be held liable for two distinct crimes
Petitioner filed a petition for certiorari with the Court of Appeals, which dismissed the under the said law. We hold otherwise. A careful look into the Dangerous Drugs
petition. Hence this petition. Act would show that it specified the manner of commission of the particular acts that
Meanwhile, in an Order[14] dated 12 May 2000, the trial court suspended further would amount to a violation of the said law, and one of which is the possession or use
proceedings in Criminal Case Nos. 9272 and 9279 pending resolution of the petition. of a prohibited or regulated drug. Although the law has provided for two separate
However, in a Resolution[15] dated 27 April 2004, the trial court, upon private articles covering the possession or use of a prohibited and a regulated drug, it does
respondents motion, dismissed Criminal Case Nos. 9272 and 9279 for unreasonable not mean that there are two separate offenses that it speaks of. What the Dangerous
delay in the prosecution of the cases which is violative of the right of the accused to Drugs Act penalizes is the specific act of possession or use of dangerous drugs, among
speedy trial.[16] Upon the prosecutions motion for reconsideration, the trial court others, regardless of the fact that it is a prohibited or a regulated drug.[18] (Emphasis
issued an Order[17] in the original)
dated 17 June 2004, setting aside its Resolution dated 27 April 2004 and reinstating The Issue: The main issue in this case is whether the prosecution should file only one
Criminal Case Nos. 9272 and 9279, with the proceedings still suspended pending Information for illegal possession of shabu and marijuana.
outcome of the appeal in the Supreme Court. The Ruling of the Court
The Ruling of the Court of Appeals The petition is meritorious.
In a Decision promulgated on 19 June 2001, the Court of Appeals affirmed the Order The Court of Appeals affirmed the Order and Resolution of the trial court that the
and Resolution of the trial court. The Court of Appeals held that the filing of only one prosecution should file only one Information. The Court of Appeals held that where
Information is proper because only one violation was committed possession possession of both prohibited and regulated drugs occurs at the same time, on the
of dangerous drugs as penalized by RA 6425. The Court of Appeals ruled that: same occasion, and in the same place, only one offense is committed under RA 6425,
In the case at bar, such intent to possess is the possession of a dangerous drug, which is possession of dangerous drugs.
however, without regard to the kind of substance involve[d], since both pertain to We cannot subscribe to the appellate courts ruling. Such interpretation dilutes the
dangerous drugs, provided it will be duly established during trial, it shall make the severity of the crimes committed. RA 6425 does not prescribe a single punishment for
accused liable for a violation of the Dangerous Drugs Act. As the possession of the the various offenses enumerated in the law. On the contrary, RA 6425 enumerates the
dangerous drugs happened at the same time, same occasion, same place, it cannot be punishable acts and its corresponding penalty. RA 6425 also specifies the particular
drugs and the corresponding quantity in the imposition of penalty. For instance, under
Section 20 of RA 6425, as amended, the minimum quantity of marijuana and shabu for The Information is defective because it charges two crimes. The appellants should
purposes of imposing the maximum penalties are not the same. For marijuana, the have filed a motion to quash the Information under Section 3, Rule 117 of the Revised
quantity must be 750 grams or more while for shabu, it is 200 grams or more. Rules of Court before their arraignment. They failed to do so. Hence, under Rule 120,
The prosecution was correct in filing two separate Informations for the crimes of Section 3 of the said rule, the appellants may be convicted of the crimes charged.[20]
illegal possession of shabu and illegal possession of marijuana. Clearly, the Legislature Just like Tira, this case involves illegal possession of both shabu and marijuana. Hence,
did not intend to lump these two separate crimes into just one crime of possession of it was only proper for the prosecution to file two separate Informations since there
dangerous drugs. Otherwise, there would be no need to specify the different kinds of were two distinct and separate crimes involved. This is in accordance with the rule
drugs and the corresponding quantity in the application of the appropriate penalty. that a complaint or information must charge only one offense, except when the law
Multiple offenses can be committed under RA 6425 even if the crimes are committed prescribes a single punishment for various offenses.[21]
in the same place, at the same time, and by the same person. Thus, this Court has WHEREFORE, we SET ASIDE the Decision promulgated on 19 June 2001 of the Court
upheld rulings of the lower courts convicting an accused charged with two separate of Appeals. We ANNUL the Resolution and the Order, dated 3 April 2000 and 2 May
crimes of illegal possession of shabu and illegal possession of marijuana, even if the 2000, respectively, of the Regional Trial Court of Dipolog City, Branch 9.
crimes were committed at the same time and in the same place.[19] We ORDER Judge MarcialG. Empleo to continue with the proceedings in Criminal Case
Besides, in People v. Tira, we have already ruled that illegal possession of shabu and Nos. 9272 and 9279.
marijuana constitutes two separate crimes and therefore, two Informations should be
filed. We held:
The trial court convicted the appellants of violating Section 16, in relation to Section
20, of Rep. Act No. 6425, as amended. The Office of the Solicitor General (OSG) asserts
that the appellants should be convicted of violating Section 8 of Rep. Act No. 6425, as
amended. We do not agree with the trial court and the OSG. We find and so hold that
the appellants are guilty of two separate crimes: (a) possession of regulated drugs
under Section 16, in relation to Section 20, of Rep. Act No. 6425, as amended, for
their possession of methamphetamine hydrochloride, a regulated drug; and, (b)
violation of Section 8, in relation to Section 20 of the law, for their possession
of marijuana, a prohibited drug. Although only one Information was filed against the
appellants, nevertheless, they could be tried and convicted for the crimes alleged
therein and proved by the prosecution. In this case, the appellants were charged for
violation of possession of marijuana and shabu in one Information which reads:
That on or about March 9, 1998, in the Municipality of Urdaneta, province
of Pangasinan, and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the above-named
accused, conspiring together, did then and there willfully, unlawfully and feloniously
have in their possession, control and custody the following:
- Three (3) pieces (sic) sachets of shabu
- Six (6) pieces opened sachets of shabu residue
- One (1) brick of dried marijuana leaves weighing 721 grams
- Twenty-four (24) tea bags of dried marijuana leaves weighing 86.3 grams
- Six [6] disposable lighter
- One (1) roll Aluminum foil
- Several empty plastics (tea bag)
- Cash money amounting to P12,536.00 in different denominations believed to be
proceeds of the contraband.without first securing the necessary permit/license to
posses[s] the same.
CONTRARY to Sec. 8, in relation to Sec. 20 of R.A. 6425, as amended.