G.R. No 182348
People vs. Carlos Dela Cruz
November 20, 2008
Facts:
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.
Accused-appellant was arrested together with a certain Boy Bicol, who
was subject to a warrant of arrest. The two were talking in a nipa hut hideout
when the warrant of arrest against Boy Bicol was served. Having been on the
scene, accused-appellant was also arrested. On the scene were shabu and
firearms, found atop the table and in drawers.
Accused-appellant denied that the guns and drugs were in his possession.
Accused-appellant was acquitted for illegal possession of firearms but was
convicted for illegal possession of prohibited drugs.
Accused appellant appealed,
claiming that the presence of all the elements of the offense of possession of
dangerous drug was not proved beyond reasonable doubt since both actual and
constructive possessions were not proved.
Ruling:
The Court reversed the lower court’s decision and acquitted the
accused-appellant
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.
Citing jurisprudence, accused-appellant couldn’t have been in
constructive possession of the items since he is not he owner of the nipa hut
subject to the warrant nor did he exercise dominion or control over the said
hut.
Since accused-appellant was not in possession of the illegal drugs in
Boy Bicol's nipa hut, his subsequent arrest was also invalid by virtue of Rule
113 of the Rules on Criminal Procedure on warrantless arrest (Sec. 5. Arrest without warrant; when lawful.)
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.
0 comments:
Post a Comment