Johnny Pagal y La Varias vs. People of the Philippines,

G.R. No. 251894, March 2, 2022

Facts:

1. On October 14, 2016, Executive Judge Parayno issued Search Warrant No. 33-2016-L. On October 17, 2016, the team implementing the search warrant conducted a briefing at the Lingayen Police Station.

2. Later, the team arrived at Pagal's house. PO3 Naungayan showed him the Search Warrant and explained its contents to him.

3. Upon Kagawad Manuel's arrival, the search of the house commenced.

4. In the living room, PO1 Saringan found atop the television a Marlboro cigarette pack containing four small heat-sealed transparent plastic sachets with white crystalline substances.

5. As the search was ongoing, Police Officer 1 Oliver Sinaban contacted Emil Toledo of Northwest Sun News and a representative from the Department of Justice. Only Toledo arrived.

6. POl Saringan then marked the items seized in the presence of Pagal, Kagawad Manuel, and Toledo. Still in the presence of the witnesses, POl Saringan proceeded to conduct the inventory. Pagal was then brought to the police station.

Issues:

· Whether or not the search warrant is valid

· Whether or not there is illegal possession of dangerous drugs

· Whether or not petitioner is guilty of the crime of illegal possession of dangerous drugs

You can support our page by clicking any of the following links:

RPC Book 1 by Reyes

Codal Set

Statutory Construction

Introduction to Law

Criminal Procedure

Law On Property

Human Rights Education

Civil Law Reviewer

Constitutional Law

Ruling:

Petitioner is acquitted.

FIRST ISSUE

Petitioner assails the validity of Search Warrant No. 33-2016-L because allegedly, there was no evidence that the executive judge who issued the warrant examined the applicant. The Supreme Court is not convinced. Petitioner raised this for the first time before this Court, so he is deemed to have waived his objection when he failed to raise it before the trial court.

SECOND ISSUE

Conviction for illegal possession of dangerous drugs requires that the following be established: "(l) the accused is in possession of an item or object, which is identified to be a prohibited or regulated drug, (2) such possession is not authorized by law, and (3) the accused freely and consciously possessed the drug." Possession contemplates actual and constructive possession

The Court of Appeals correctly stated that all the elements are present. The confiscated drugs were found inside petitioner's house, as specified in the Search Warrant. Absent evidence to the contrary, mere finding of illicit drugs in petitioner's house raises the presumption of constructive possession. Here, apart from alleging non-exclusive possession of the house, Pagal merely denied having smoked Marlboro cigarettes. Pagal also failed to present any authority to possess the illegal drugs confiscated from his house. His only defenses were denial and frame-up. Without clear and persuasive proof, these are inherently weak and deserve no credence.

THIRD ISSUE

Aside from establishing the elements of illegal possession, the prosecution must prove that the identity and integrity of the corpus delicti have been preserved and established beyond reasonable doubt. The existence of dangerous drugs as the corpus delicti of the crime is a condition sine qua non for a conviction under Republic Act No. 9165.

Republic Act No. 10640 amended the witness requirement under Section 21, which now only requires an elected public official and either a representative of the National Prosecution Service or of the media. These witnesses must be present not only during inventory, but more important, during the seizure and confiscation of the illegal drugs.

In addition, the prosecution must establish every link in the chain of custody.

Here, the prosecution failed on both counts. Only a general acknowledgement of noncompliance with Section 21 was made, without identifying the specific measures undertaken to ensure the integrity and evidentiary value of the corpus delicti. Worse, the prosecution attempted to shift the burden to accused-appellant to allege or prove contamination of the seized illegal drugs.

The two required witnesses were not present during the confiscation of the illegal drugs, tainting both the seizure and marking of the illegal drugs. The Search Warrant was issued on October 14, 2016 but was implemented three days later. Thus, the police officers had sufficient time to ensure that both witnesses would be present during the search. The prosecution did not attempt to explain why the search was commenced without waiting for Toledo. It also appears that Toledo was only contacted while the search was already ongoing. This taints the credibility of the corpus delicti at the time of seizure.

Second, the law and jurisprudence are clear that the marking, inventory, and photographing of the seized drugs "shall be conducted at the place where the search warrant is served." The prosecution failed to explain why the marking of seized items was done "outside the house."