The Case for the Prosecution[4]

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, appellee, vs. AMADEO TIRA and CONNIE

TIRA, appellants.
In the evening of February 24, 1998, SPO3 Asidelio Manibog received a verbal
DECISION instruction from the Chief of Police Superintendent Wilson R. Victorio to conduct
surveillance operations on the house of Amadeo Tira and Connie Tira at Perez
CALLEJO, SR., J.: Extension Street because of reported rampant drug activities in the said area. Manibog
formed a team composed of SPO1 Renato Cresencia, PO3 Reynaldo Javonilla, Jr. and
This is an appeal of the Decision[1] of the Regional Trial Court of Pangasinan, PO3 Efren Abad de Vera to conduct the ordered surveillance.
Branch 46, finding appellants Amadeo Tira and Connie Tira guilty beyond reasonable
doubt of violating Section 16, in relation to Section 20, Article III of Republic Act No. At around 8:00 p.m., the group, clad in civilian clothes, arrived at Perez
6425, known as the Dangerous Drugs Act of 1972, as amended by Rep. Act No. 7659, Extension Street. As they stationed themselves in the periphery of a store, they
sentencing each of them to suffer the penalty of reclusion perpetua and ordering each observed that more than twenty persons had gone in and out of the Tira residence. They
of them to pay a fine of P1,000.000.[2] confronted one of them, and asked what was going on inside the house. The person
revealed that Amadeo Tira sold shabu, and that he was a regular customer. The group
went closer to the house and started planning their next move. They wanted to pose as
buyers, but hesitated, for fear of being identified as PNP members. Instead, they stayed
The Indictment there up to 12:00 midnight and continued observing the place. Convinced that illegal
activities were going on in the house, the policemen returned to the station and reported
to P/Supt. Wilson R. Victorio. After hearing their report, P/Supt. Victorio instructed
The appellants Amadeo Tira and Connie Tira were charged in an Information his men to make an affidavit of surveillance preliminary to an application for a search
which reads: warrant.[5]

That on or about March 9, 1998, in the Municipality of Urdaneta, province of On March 6, 1998, SPO3 Asidelio Manibog, PO3 Efren Abad de Vera, SPO1
Pangasinan and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the above-named Renato Cresencia and PO2 Reynaldo Soliven Javonilla, Jr. executed an Affidavit of
accused, conspiring together, did then and there willfully, unlawfully and feloniously Surveillance, alleging, inter alia, that they were members of the Drug Enforcement
have in their possession, control and custody the following: Unit of Urdaneta, Pangasinan, and that in the evening of February 24, 1998, they
confirmed reports of illegal drug-related activities in the house of the spouses Amadeo
and Connie Tira.[6] On March 6, 1998[7] Police Chief Inspector Danilo Bumatay Datu
- Three (3) (sic) sachets of shabu
filed an Application for a Search Warrant in the Municipal Trial Court of Urdaneta,
- Six (6) pieces opened sachets of shabu residue
Pangasinan, attaching thereto the affidavit of surveillance executed by his men and a
- One (1) brick of dried marijuana leaves
sketch of the place to be searched.[8]
weighing 721 grams
- Six disposable lighter Satisfied with the testimonies of SPO3 Manibog, PO3 de Vera, SPO1 Cresencia
- One (1) roll Aluminum Foil and PO2 Javonilla, Jr., Judge Aurora A. Gayapa issued a search warrant commanding
- Several empty plastics (tea bag) the applicants to make an immediate search of the Tira residence at anytime of the day
- Cash money amounting to P12,536.00 in or night, particularly the first room on the right side, and the two rooms located at
different denominations believed to be proceeds Perez south, and forthwith seize and take possession of the following items:
of the contraband.
1. Poor Mans Cocaine known as Shabu;
without first securing the necessary permit/license to possess the same. 2. Drug-Usage Paraphernalia; and
3. Weighing scale.[9]
CONTRARY to SEC. 8 in relation to Sec. 20 of RA 6425, as amended. [3]
P/Sr. Inspector Ludivico Bravo, and as head of the team, with SPO3 Cariaga,
PO3 Concepcion, Cario, Galima, Villaroya, Andaya, SPO1 Mario Tajon, SPO1
1|Page
Asterio Dismaya, SPO1 Renato Cresencia, and PO3 Reynaldo Javonillo were directed b. Six (6) opened sachets of suspected methamphetamine
to implement the search warrant.[10] They responded and brought Barangay hydrochloride (SHABU) residue;
Kagawad Mario Conwi to witness the search.[11] At 2:35 p.m. on March 9, 1998, the c. Twenty-four (4) pieces of dried marijuana leaves sachet; and
team proceeded to the Tira residence. The men found Ernesto Tira, the father of d. One (1) heat-sealed plastic sachet of suspected methamphetamine
Amadeo, at the porch of the house. They introduced themselves and told Ernesto that hydrochloride confiscated from the possession of Nelson
they had a warrant authorizing them to search the premises. Ernesto led them Tira.[20]
inside. The policemen found the newly awakened Amadeo inside the first room[12]of
the house.[13] With Barangay Kagawad Conwi and Amadeo Tira, the policemen On March 10, 1998, P/Supt. Wilson R. Victorio executed a Compliance/Return
proceeded to search the first room to the right (an inner room) and found the following of Search Warrant.[21]
under the bed where Amadeo slept:[14] On March 17, 1998, the PNP Crime Laboratory Group in Physical Science
1. 9 pcs. suspected methamphetamine hydrochloride placed in heat- Report No. DT-057-98 reported that the test conducted by Police
sealed transparent plastic sachets Superintendent/Chemist Theresa Ann Bugayong-Cid,[22] yielded positive for
2. roll aluminum foil methamphetamine hydrochloride (shabu) and marijuana. The report contained the
3. several empty plastic transparent following findings:
4. used and unused aluminum foil[15]
5. disposable lighters A1 to A3, B1 to B6, E POSITIVE to the test for methamphetamine hydrochloride
6. 1 sachet of shabu confiscated from Nelson Tira[16] (shabu), a regulated drug.

They also found cash money amounting to P12,536 inside a shoulder bag placed
C and D1 to D4 POSITIVE to the test for marijuana, a prohibited drug.
on top of the television, in the following denominations:
CONCLUSION:
1 pc. -P1,000.00 bill Specimens A1 to A3, B1 to B6 and E contain methamphetamine hydrochloride
4 pcs. - 500.00 bill
(Shabu) and specimens C and D1 to D24 contain marijuana.[23]
52 pcs. - 100.00 bill
36 pcs. - 50.00 bill
100 pcs. - 20.00 bill A criminal complaint was filed by P/Supt. Wilson R. Victorio against Amadeo
53 pcs. - 10.00 bill Tira and Connie Tira on March 10, 1998 for violation of Rep. Act No. 6425, as
1 pc. - 5.00 bill amended.[24] After finding probable cause, Assistant Provincial Prosecutor Rufino A.
1 pc. - 1.00 coin[17] Moreno filed an Information against the Tira Spouses for illegal possession of shabu
and marijuana, in violation of Section 8, in relation to Section 20 of Rep. Act No.
6425.[25] A warrant of arrest was issued against Connie Tira on May 13,
The policemen listed the foregoing items they found in the house. Amadeos 1998. However, when the policemen tried to serve the said warrant, she could not be
picture was taken while he was signing the said certification.[18]Ernesto (Amadeos
found in the given address.[26]She was arrested only on October 6, 1998.[27]
father), also witnessed the certification.
During the trial, the court conducted an ocular inspection of the Tira residence.[28]
A joint affidavit of arrest was, thereafter, executed by SPO3 Asidelio Manibog,
SPO1 Mario C. Tajon, SPO1 Asterio T. Dismaya, SPO1 Renato M. Cresencia and PO3
Reynaldo S. Javonilla, Jr. for the apprehension of Amadeo Tira and Nelson Tira who
were brought to the police station for custodial investigation. The articles seized were The Case for Accused Amadeo Tira[29]
turned over to the PNP Crime Laboratory, Urdaneta Sub-Office, for examination.[19] In
turn, a laboratory examination request was made to the Chief of the Philippine
National Police Service-1, Sub-Office, Urdaneta, Pangasinan for the following: Amadeo Tira denied the charge. He testified that he was a furniture delivery
boy[30] who owned a one-storey bungalow house with two bedrooms and one masters
a. Three (3) sachets of suspected methamphetamine hydrochloride bedroom. There was also another room which was divided into an outer and inner
approximately 0.5 grams; room; the latter room had no windows or ventilation. The house stood twenty meters
2|Page
away from Perez Extension Street in Urdaneta, Pangasinan, and could be reached only WHEREFORE, JUDGMENT is hereby rendered CONVICTING beyond reasonable
by foot.[31] He leased the room located at the western portion to his nephew Chris doubt accused AMADEO TIRA for Illegal Possession of Marijuana weighing 807.3
Tira[32] and the latters live-in-partner Gemma Lim for four hundred pesos a grams and shabu weighing 1.001 gram penalized under Article III, Sections 16 and
month.[33] Chris and Gemma were engaged in the buying and selling of bananas. He 20, of Republic Act 6425, known as [the] Dangerous Drugs Act of 1972, as amended
denied that there were young men coming in and out of his house. [34] by Republic Act 7659. The Court sentences Amadeo Tira to suffer the penalty of
Reclusion Perpetua and a fine of P1,000,000.00.
In the afternoon of March 6, 1998, he was in his house sleeping when the
policemen barged into his house. He heard a commotion and went out of the room to
see what it was all about, and saw police officers Cresencia, Javonilla and Bergonia, The amount of P12,536.00 is hereby forfeited in favor of the government which
searching the room of his nephew, Chris Tira. He told them to stop searching so that forms part of the fine; the marijuana weighing 807.3 grams and shabu weighing
he could contact his father, Ernesto, who in turn, would call the barangay captain. The 1.001 gram are hereby forfeited in favor of the government; the disposable lighter
policemen continued with their search. He was then pulled inside the room and the and the aluminum foil are likewise forfeited in favor of the government.
policemen showed him the items they allegedly found.[35]
The Branch Clerk of Court of this Court is hereby ordered to prepare the mittimus.
Barangay Kagawad Mario Conwi testified that on March 9, 1998, while he was
at Calle Perez, Urdaneta, Pangasinan, Capt. Ludivico Bravo asked to be accompanied The Warden, Bureau of Jail Management and Penology (BJMP) is hereby ordered to
to the Tira residence. Capt. Bravo was with at least ten other policemen. As they transmit the person of Amadeo Tira to the National Bilibid Prison with proper escort
parked the car at Calle Perez, the policemen saw a man running towards the direction within fifteen (15) days upon receipt of this Order.[45]
of the ricefields. Kagawad Conwi and some of the policemen chased the man, who
turned out to be Nelson Tira.One of the policemen pointed to a sachet of shabu which
fell to the ground near Nelson. The policemen arrested him and proceeded to the house The trial court upheld the validity of Search Warrant No. 3 issued by Judge
of Amadeo Tira to serve the warrant.[36] When they reached the house, the other Aurora Gayapa. It found Amadeos defense, that the room where the items were seized
policemen were waiting. He saw Amadeo and Connie Tira sitting by the door of the was rented out to the couple Cris Tira and Gemma Lim, unsubstantiated. It held that
house in the sala. Thereafter, he and the policemen started the search.[37] They searched Amadeo, as owner of the house, had control over the room as well as the things found
the first room located at the right side (if facing south),[38] and found marijuana, shabu, therein and that the inner room was a secret and practical place to keep marijuana,
money and some paraphernalia.[39] An inventory of the items seized was made shabu and related paraphernalia.[46]
afterwards, which was signed by Capt. Bravo and Ernesto Tira. [40] Amadeo appealed the decision.[47]
Alfonso Gallardo, Amadeos neighbor, testified that he was the one who
constructed the Tira residence and that the house initially had two rooms.The first
room was rented out, while the second room was occupied by the Spouses Amadeo The Case Against Connie Tira
and Connie Tira.[41] Subsequently, a divider was placed inside the first room. [42] He
also testified that his house was only three (3) meters away from that of the Tiras, and
that only a toilet separated their houses.[43] He denied that there were many people After her arrest, Connie filed a motion to quash search warrant, [48] alleging that
going in and out of the Tira residence.[44] the police officers who applied for the said warrant did not have any personal
knowledge of the reported illegal activities. She contended that the same was issued
in violation of Section 4, Rule 126 of the Rules of Court, as the judge issued the search
warrant without conducting searching questions and answers, and without attaching
The Ruling of the Trial Court
the records of the proceedings. Moreover, the search warrant issued was in the nature
of a general warrant, to justify the fishing expedition conducted on the premises.
The trial court rendered judgment on September 24, 1998, finding Amadeo Tira On October 26, 1998, the presiding judge ordered Judge Aurora A. Gayapa to
guilty beyond reasonable doubt of illegal possession of 807.3 grams of marijuana and forward the stenographic notes of the applicant and the witnesses.[49] Connie was
1.001 gram of shabu. The decretal portion of its decision is herein quoted: arraigned on November 9, 1998, pending the resolution of the motion. She pleaded not
guilty to the charge of illegal possession of shabu and marijuana.[50] The trial court
thereafter issued an Order on November 11, 1998, denying the motion to quash.[51] It
3|Page
did not give credence to the allegations of Connie Tira, and found that Judge Gayapa The Warden, Bureau of Jail Management and Penology (BJMP) is hereby ordered to
issued the search warrant after conducting searching questions, and in consideration transmit the person of Connie Tira to the National Bilibid Prisons with proper escort
of the affidavit of witness Enrique Milad. within fifteen (15) days upon receipt of his Order. [53]
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 The trial court did not believe that Connie Tira had no knowledge, control and
in their house was occupied by their three boarders, two male persons and one female. possession of the shabu and marijuana found in the first or inner room of their house. It
stressed that Connie and Amadeo Tira jointly controlled and possessed the shabu and
In the afternoon of March 9, 1998, she and her husband Amadeo were in their marijuana that the policemen found therein. It ratiocinated that it was unusual for a
house, while their boarders were in their respective rooms. At 2:30 p.m., she was in wife not to know the existence of prohibited drugs in the conjugal abode. Thus, as
the kitchen taking care of her one-year-old child. She had other three children, aged husband and wife, the accused conspired and confederated with each other in keeping
eight, four, and three, respectively, who were watching television. Her husband custody of the said prohibited articles.[54] The court also held that Connie Tiras flight
Amadeo was sleeping in one of the rooms. Suddenly, five policemen barged into their from their house after the search was an indication of her guilt. Connie, likewise,
house and searched all the rooms. The policemen found and seized articles in the room appealed the decision.[55]
occupied by one of their boarders. They arrested Amadeo, and her brother-in-law,
Nelson Tira, and brought them to the police station. The boarders, however, were not
arrested. The Present Appeal
Joy Fernandez, a neighbor of the Tiras, lived approximately ten meters away In their brief, the appellants Amadeo and Connie Tira assigned the following
from the latter. Since they had no television, she frequently went to her neighbors errors committed by the trial court:
house to watch certain programs. In the afternoon of March 9, 1998, she was at the
Tira residence watching Mirasol, while Connie was in the kitchen nursing her I
baby. Suddenly, about five or ten persons ran inside the house and handcuffed Amadeo
Tira.[52] THE TRIAL COURT ERRED IN CONVICTING ACCUSED-APPELLANTS
DESPITE FAILURE ON THE PART OF THE PROSECUTION TO PROVE
THEIR GUILT BEYOND REASONABLE DOUBT.
The Ruling of the Trial Court
II

The trial court found Connie Tira guilty beyond reasonable doubt of illegal THE TRIAL COURT ERRED IN NOT HOLDING THAT THE SEARCH WAS
possession of 807.3 grams of marijuana and 1.001 gram of shabu. The dispositive ILLEGALLY MADE.
portion of the decision reads:
III
WHEREFORE, JUDGMENT is hereby rendered CONVICTING beyond reasonable
doubt accused CONNIE TIRA for Illegal Possession of Marijuana weighing 807.3 ASSUMING THAT ACCUSED-APPELLANT AMADEO TIRA IS GUILTY AS
grams and shabu weighing 1.001 gram penalized under Article III, Section 16 and CHARGED, THE TRIAL COURT ERRED IN HOLDING THAT THERE WAS A
20, of Republic Act 6425, known as [the] Dangerous Drugs Act of 1972, as amended CONSPIRACY BETWEEN HIM AND HIS WIFE CONNIE TIRA.[56]
by Republic Act 7659, the Court sentences Connie Tira to suffer the penalty of
Reclusion Perpetua and a fine of P1,000,000.00.
The Court shall resolve the assigned errors simultaneously as they are
interrelated.
The amount of P12,536.00 is hereby forfeited in favor of the government which
forms part of the fine; the marijuana weighing 807.3 grams and shabu weighing The appellants contend that the search conducted by the policemen in the room
1.001 gram are hereby forfeited in favor of the government; the disposable lighter occupied by Chris and Gemma Lim, where the articles and substances were found by
and the aluminum foil are, likewise, forfeited in favor of the government.

4|Page
the policemen, was made in their absence. Thus, the search was made in violation of Q What else did you find aside from marijuana leaves?
Section 7, Rule 126 of the Rules of Criminal Procedure, which provides:
A We also find suspected sachet of shabu, Sir.
SEC. 7. Search of house, room, or premise, to be made in presence of two Q What else?
witnesses. No search of house, room, or any other premise shall be made except in
the presence of the lawful occupant thereof or any member of his family or in the A Lighter, Sir.
absence of the latter, in the presence of two witnesses of sufficient age and discretion COURT:
residing in the same locality.
Q If that shabu will be shown to you, could you identify the same?
The appellants posit that the articles and substances found by the policemen in WITNESS:
their house are inadmissible in evidence, being the fruits of a poisonous tree. Hence,
they contend, they should have been acquitted of the crime charged. The appellants A Yes, Sir.
further assert that the prosecution failed to prove that they owned the prohibited drugs,
and that the same were in their possession and control when found by the Q About the marijuana leaves, if shown to you could you identify the same?
policemen. They insist that it cannot be presumed that they were in control and A Yes, Sir.
possession of the said substances/articles simply because they owned the house where
the same were found, considering that the room was occupied by Chris Tira and his PROS. DUMLAO:
live-in partner, Gemma Lim.
Q What else did you find out aside from the marijuana leaves, shabu and
The appellant Connie Tira avers that she never fled from their house after the lighter?
policemen had conducted the search. Neither was she arrested by the policemen when
A I have here the list, Sir.
they arrested her husband.
One (1) brick of marijuana
The appeals have no merit. 24 pcs. tea bag of marijuana
9 pcs. sachets of suspected shabu
Contrary to the appellants claim, appellant Amadeo Tira was present when the 6 disposable lighters
policemen searched the inner room of the house. The articles and substances were 1 roll of aluminum foil
found under the bed on which the appellant Amadeo Tira slept. The policemen did not several empty plastic; several used
find the said articles and substances in any other room in the house: and unused aluminum foil
Q So when you reached the house of Amadeo Tira at the Tiras compound, one (1) sachet of shabu confiscated from Nelson Tira; and
you saw the father and you told him you are implementing the Search P12,536.00 cash in different denominations proceeds of the contrand
Warrant and your group was allowed to enter and you are allowed to (sic).
search in the presence of Amadeo Tira? COURT:
A Yes, Sir. Q Where did you find the money?
PROS. DUMLAO A Near the marijuana at the bag, Sir.
Q In the course of your search, what did you find? Q About the money, could you still identify if shown to you?
WITNESS: A Yes, Sir.
A We found out suspected marijuana leaves, Sir. Q When you found shabu, lighter, marijuana, and money, what did you do?
Q Where, in what particular place did you find? A We marked them, Sir.
A Under the bed inside the room of Amadeo Tira, Sir Q All of the items?
5|Page
 A Only the marijuana, Sir. Q You said you recovered one (1) brick of marijuana leaves, showing to
you a (sic) one (1) brick suspected to be marijuana leaves, is this the
Q What mark did you place? one you are referring to?
A My signature, Sir.[57] A Yes, Sir, this is the one.[58]
PROS. TOMBOC: Appellant Amadeo Tira was not the only witness to the search; Kagawad Mario
Q And when you were allowed to enter the house, did you notice who was Conwi and Ernesto Tira, Amadeos father, were also present. Ernesto Tira even led the
present? policemen inside the house. This is evidenced not only by the testimony
of Kagawad Conwi, but also by the certification signed by the appellant himself, along
A I noticed the presence of Connie Tira, Sir. with Kagawad Conwi and Ernesto Tira.[59]
Q When you said Connie Tira, is she the same Connie Tira the accused in The trial court rejected the testimony of appellant Amadeo Tira that the inner
this case? room searched by the policemen was occupied by Chris Tira and his girlfriend Gemma
Lim with the following encompassing disquisition:
A Yes, Sir, she was taking care of the baby.
Q Who else? The defense contention that a couple from Baguio City first occupied the first room,
the Court is not persuaded because they did not present said businessmen
A We also noticed the presence of Amadeo Tira, Sir.
from Baguio City who were engaged in vegetable business. Secondly, the same room
Q What was he doing there? was rented by Chris Tira and Gemma Lim. Chris Tira and Gemma Lim, engaged in
banana business, were not presented in Court. If it were true that Chris Tira and
A He was newly awake, Sir. Gemma Lim were the supposed lessees of the room, they should have been
Q Upon entering the house, what did you do? apprehended by the searching party on March 9, 1998, at about 2:30 p.m. There was
no proof showing that Chris Tira and Gemma Lim ever occupied the room, like
A We entered and searched the first room, Sir. personal belongings of Chris Tira and Gemma Lim. The defense did not even show
proof showing that Chris Tira reside in the first room, like clothings, toothbrush,
Q What did you find out? soap, shoes and other accessories which make them the residents or occupants of the
A Shabu and Marijuana and paraphernalia, Sir. room. There were no kitchen plates, spoons, powder, or soap evidencing that the said
room was occupied by Chris Tira and Gemma Lim. Amadeo Tira contended that
Q Are you one of those who entered the house? Chris Tira and Gemma Lim are engaged in banana business. There are no banana
stored in the room at the time of the search and both of them were out of the room at
A Yes, Sir.
the time of the search. And why did not Amadeo Tira supply the police officers of
Q Can you mention to the Honorable Court those items that you searched the personal identities and address where they could find Chris Tira and Gemma Lim
in the house of Connie Tira and Amadeo Tira? at the time of the search. If they were banana dealers, they must be selling their
banana in the market and they could have pointed them in the market.[60]
A As per in (sic) our records, we found three (3) sachets containing
suspected Methamphetamine Hydrochloride Shabu residue; one (1) We are in full accord with the trial court. It bears stressing that the trial court
brick of suspected dried marijuana leaves weighing more or less 750 conducted an ocular inspection of the house of the appellants, and thus, had first hand
grams; twenty-four (24) tea bags containing dried marijuana leaves; knowledge of the layout of the house. Besides, the testimony of the appellant Amadeo
six (6) disposable lighter; one (1) roll aluminum foil; several empty Tira, that the inner room was occupied by Chris Tira and Gemma Lim who were not
plastics (tea bag); several used and unused aluminum foil; and cash there when the search was conducted, is belied by the testimony of the appellant
money amounting to P12,536.00 in different denominations Connie Tira that the room was occupied by two male and one female boarders who
believe[d] to be proceeds of the contraband, Sir. were in the room when the policemen searched it. Thus:

6|Page
 Q You said that while taking care of your baby, several policemen barged not authorized by law or by duly constituted authorities; and, (c) the accused has
[sic] your house? knowledge that the said drug is a regulated drug.This crime is mala prohibita, and, as
such, criminal intent is not an essential element. However, the prosecution must prove
A Yes, Sir. that the accused had the intent to possess (animus posidendi) the drugs. Possession,
Q And they proceeded to your room where your husband was sleeping at under the law, includes not only actual possession, but also constructive
that time? possession.Actual possession exists when the drug is in the immediate physical
possession or control of the accused.[63] On the other hand, constructive possession
A Yes, Sir. exists when the drug is under the dominion and control of the accused or when he has
the right to exercise dominion and control over the place where it is
Q And it is in that room where your husband was sleeping and where those
found.[64] Exclusive possession or control is not necessary.[65] The accused cannot
articles were taken?
avoid conviction if his right to exercise control and dominion over the place where the
A No, Sir. contraband is located, is shared with another.[66]

Q Where are (sic) those things came (sic) from? Thus, conviction need not be predicated upon exclusive possession, and a
showing of non-exclusive possession would not exonerate the accused.[67] Such fact of
A At the room where my boarders occupied, Sir. possession may be proved by direct or circumstantial evidence and any reasonable
Q So, at that time where were those boarders? inference drawn therefrom. However, the prosecution must prove that the accused had
knowledge of the existence and presence of the drug in the place under his control and
A They were inside their room, Sir. dominion and the character of the drug.[68] Since knowledge by the accused of the
existence and character of the drugs in the place where he exercises dominion and
Q How many of them? control is an internal act, the same may be presumed from the fact that the dangerous
A Two (2) male persons and one woman, Sir. drug is in the house or place over which the accused has control or dominion, or within
such premises in the absence of any satisfactory explanation.[69]
Q And do you know their whereabout[s], Madam Witness?
In this case, the prohibited and regulated drugs were found under the bed in the
A No more, Sir. inner room of the house of the appellants where they also resided. The appellants had
actual and exclusive possession and control and dominion over the house, including
Q When did they leave, Madam Witness?
the room where the drugs were found by the policemen. The appellant Connie Tira
A At that time, they left the house, Sir. cannot escape criminal liability for the crime charged simply and merely on her
barefaced testimony that she was a plain housewife, had no involvement in the
Q They were not investigated by the police? criminal actuations of her husband, and had no knowledge of the existence of the drugs
A No, Sir.[61] in the inner room of the house. She had full access to the room, including the space
under the bed. She failed to adduce any credible evidence that she was prohibited by
We agree with the finding of the trial court that the only occupants of the house her husband, the appellant Amadeo Tira, from entering the room, cleaning it, or even
when the policemen conducted their search were the appellants and their young sleeping on the bed. We agree with the findings and disquisition of the trial court, viz:
children, and that the appellants had no boarders therein.
Before the accused may be convicted of violating Section 8 of Republic Act No. The Court is not persuaded that Connie Tira has no knowledge, control and
6425, as amended by Rep. Act No. 7659, the prosecution is burdened to prove beyond possession of the shabu and marijuana (Exhibits M, N, O and P) found in their
reasonable doubt the essential elements of the crime, viz: (1) the actual possession of room.Connie Tira and Amadeo Tira jointly control and possess the shabu (Exhibits
an item or object which is identified to be a prohibited drug; (2) such possession is not M and N) and marijuana (Exhibits O and P) found in the room of their house. It is
authorized by law; and, (3) the accused freely or consciously possessed the said unusual for a wife not to know the existence in their conjugal abode, the questioned
drug.[62] shabu and marijuana. The husband and wife (Amadeo and Connie) conspired and
confederated with each other the keeping and custody of said prohibited
The essential elements of the crime of possession of regulated drugs are the articles. Both of them are deemed in possession of said articles in violation of R.A.
following: (a) the accused is found in possession of a regulated drug; (b) the person is 6425, Section 8, in relation to Section 20.
7|Page
 The Crimes Committed by the Appellants before trial, the court may convict him of as many offenses as are charged and
proved, and impose on him the penalty for each offense, setting out separately the
findings of fact and law in each offense.
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 The Proper Penalties On the Appellants
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
The crime of violation of Section 8, Article II of Rep. Act No. 6425, as amended,
amended, for their possession of methamphetamine hydrochloride, a regulated drug;
for illegal possession of 807.3 grams of marijuana, a prohibited drug, is punishable
and, (b) violation of Section 8, in relation to Section 20 of the law, for their possession
by reclusion perpetua to death. Considering that there are no qualifying
of marijuana, a prohibited drug. Although only one Information was filed against the
circumstances, the appellants are sentenced to suffer the penalty of reclusion
appellants, nevertheless, they could be tried and convicted for the crimes alleged
perpetua, conformably to Article 63 of the Revised Penal Code and are ordered to pay
therein and proved by the prosecution. In this case, the appellants were charged for
a fine of P500,000.00.
violation of possession of marijuana and shabu in one Information which reads:
Under Section 16, Article III of Rep. Act No. 6425, as amended, the imposable
That on or about March 9, 1998, in the Municipality of Urdaneta, province of penalty of possession of a regulated drug, less than 200 grams, in this case, shabu,
Pangasinan, and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the above-named is prision correccional to reclusion perpetua. Based on the quantity of the regulated
accused, conspiring together, did then and there willfully, unlawfully and feloniously drug subject of the offense, the imposable penalty shall be as follows:
have in their possession, control and custody the following:
QUANTITY IMPOSABLE PENALTY
- Three (3) pieces (sic) sachets of shabu
- Six (6) pieces opened sachets of shabu residue Less than one (1) gram to 49.25 grams prision correccional
- One (1) brick of dried marijuana leaves weighing 721 grams 49.26 grams to 98.50 grams prision mayor
- Twenty-four (24) tea bags of dried marijuana leaves weighing 86.3 98.51 grams to 147.75 grams reclusion temporal
grams 147.76 grams to 199 grams reclusion perpetua
- Six [6] disposable lighter
- One (1) roll Aluminum foil Considering that the regulated drug found in the possession of the appellants is
- Several empty plastics (tea bag) only 1.001 grams, the imposable penalty for the crime is prision
- Cash money amounting to P12,536.00 in different denominations correccional. Applying the Indeterminate Sentence Law, the appellants are sentenced
believed to be proceeds of the contraband. to suffer an indeterminate penalty of from four (4) months and one (1) day of arresto
mayor in its medium period as minimum, to three (3) years of prision correccional in
Without first securing the necessary permit/license to posses[s] the same. its medium period as maximum, for violation of Section 16 of Rep. Act No. 6425, as
amended.
CONTRARY TO SEC. 8, in relation to Sec. 20 of R.A. 6425, as amended. [70]The
IN LIGHT OF ALL THE FOREGOING, appellants Amadeo and Connie Tira
Information is defective because it charges two crimes. The appellants should have
are found GUILTY beyond reasonable doubt of violating Section 8, Article II of Rep.
filed a motion to quash the Information under Section 3, Rule 117 of the Revised
Act No. 6425, as amended, and are hereby sentenced to suffer the penalty of reclusion
Rules of Court before their arraignment. They failed to do so. Hence, under Rule
perpetua, and ORDERED to pay a fine of P1,000,000.00. The said appellants are,
120, Section 3 of the said rule, the appellants may be convicted of the crimes
likewise, found GUILTY beyond reasonable doubt of violating Section 16, Article III
charged. The said Rule provides:
of Rep. Act No. 6425, as amended, and are sentenced to suffer an indeterminate
penalty of from Four (4) Months and One (1) Day of arresto mayor in its medium
SEC. 3. Judgment for two or more offenses. - When two or more offenses are period as minimum, to Three (3) years of prision correccional, in its medium period,
charged in a single complaint or information but the accused fails to object to it as maximum.
8|Page
 Police Superintendent Virgilio T. Ranes, Dipolog City Chief of Police, filed
THIRD DIVISION two criminal complaints for violation of Section 8, Article II and Section 16,
Article III of Republic Act No. 6425[5] (RA 6425), as amended, against private
respondent. After preliminary investigation, State Prosecutor Rodrigo
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, G.R. No. 148547
T. Eguia filed two Informations before the Regional Trial Court
- versus -
HON. MARCIAL G. EMPLEO,
in Dipolog City:
in his capacity as Presiding Judge
of Branch 9, Regional Trial Court
September 27, 2006 Criminal Case No. 9272

INFORMATION
DECISION The undersigned Prosecutor of Region 9 accuses DANTE MAH y Cabilin of
the crime of VIOLATION OF SECTION 16, ARTICLE III of R.A. 6425, as
This petition for review on certiorari[1] seeks to reverse the amended, committed as follows:
Decision[2] promulgated on 19 June 2001 of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R.
SPNo. 59269. The Court of Appeals affirmed the Resolution and Order of That on October 6, 1999 at 10:30, more or less at corner Quezon Avenue
Judge Marcial G. Empleo (Judge Empleo) of the Regional Trial Court and Mabini Streets, Barra, Dipolog City, Philippines, and within the
of Dipolog City, Branch 9 (trial court), directing the prosecutor to amend the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the above-named accused, knowing fully
two Informations filed by filing only a single Information. well that unauthorized possession and control of regulated drug is punishable
by law, did then and there willfully, unlawfully and feloniously have in his
The Facts possession and control Thirty Two (32) pieces small plastic sachets and six (6)
pieces big plastic sachet containing Methamphetamine Hydrochloride, more
On 6 October 1999, a search warrant[3] was issued for the search and seizure popularly known as shabu, weighing a total of 6.4 grams, without any legal
of shabu and paraphernalia at the room rented by private respondent authority to possess the same, in gross Violation of Section 16, Article III, of
Dante Mah (private respondent) at the LS Lodge located at the corner R.A. 6425, as amended.
of Quezon Avenue and Mabini Street in Dipolog City.
CONTRARY TO LAW.[6]
During the search, the police officers seized the following from private
respondents room: Criminal Case No. 9279

1. Thirty-two small plastic sachets containing white crystalline granules INFORMATION

believed to be shabu, weighing 2 grams;
2. Six big plastic sachets containing white crystalline granules believed to The undersigned State Prosecutor of Region 9 accuses DANTE MAH
be shabu, weighing 4.4 grams; y Cabilin alias Dodoy Mah of the crime of Violation of Section 8, Article II of
3. One roll/stick of dried Indian hemp (marijuana) leaves weighing 0.2 gram; Republic Act No. 6425, as amended, committed as follows:
and
4. One small plastic sachet containing white crystalline granules believed to That on October 6, 1999 at 10:30 in the morning, more or less, at
be shabu, weighing 0.05 grams.[4] corner Quezon Avenue and Mabini Streets, Barra, Dipolog City, Philippines,
and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the above-named accused,
knowing fully well that possession and use of prohibited drugs is punishable
9|Page
by law, did then and there willfully, unlawfully and feloniously have in his Information. The trial court denied the motion in an Order[13] dated 2 May
possession and control One (1) roll/stick dried marijuana leaves, without legal 2000.
authority to possess the same, in gross Violation of Section 8, Article II of
Republic Act No. 6425, as amended. Petitioner filed a petition for certiorari with the Court of Appeals, which
dismissed the petition. Hence this petition.
CONTRARY TO LAW.[7]
Upon his arraignment on 28 October 1999, private respondent pleaded not Meanwhile, in an Order[14] dated 12 May 2000, the trial court suspended
guilty to the two charges. further proceedings in Criminal Case Nos. 9272 and 9279 pending resolution
of the petition. However, in a Resolution[15] dated 27 April 2004, the trial court,
On 17 February 2000, private respondent filed a motion[8] to dismiss Criminal upon private respondents motion, dismissed Criminal Case Nos. 9272 and
Case No. 9279. Private respondent alleged that the single act of possession of 9279 for unreasonable delay in the prosecution of the cases which
drugs committed at the same time and at the same place cannot be the subject is violative of the right of the accused to speedy trial.[16] Upon the prosecutions
of two separate Informations. Since the prosecution already filed Criminal motion for reconsideration, the trial court issued an Order[17]
Case No. 9272, then the filing of Criminal Case No. 9279 is tantamount to dated 17 June 2004, setting aside its Resolution dated 27 April 2004 and
splitting a single cause of action into two separate cases. reinstating Criminal Case Nos. 9272 and 9279, with the proceedings still
suspended pending outcome of the appeal in the Supreme Court.
The prosecution opposed the motion, claiming that unauthorized possession
of marijuana and shabu are punishable under Section 8, Article II and Section The Ruling of the Court of Appeals
16, Article III of RA 6425. Hence, these acts constitute two separate and In a Decision promulgated on 19 June 2001, the Court of Appeals affirmed the
distinct offenses with separate penalties.[9] Order and Resolution of the trial court. The Court of Appeals held that the
filing of only one Information is proper because only one violation was
In a Resolution[10] dated 3 April 2000, Judge Empleo directed the prosecutor committed possession of dangerous drugs as penalized by RA 6425. The Court
to file only a single Information. The Resolution reads in part: of Appeals ruled that:
It is to be noted that the stuffs, SHABU and Marijuana Leaves are all
prohibited and regulated drugs. But what is important is that the search and In the case at bar, such intent to possess is the possession of a dangerous drug,
seizure was done at one time, the same place and at one occasion. Hence, there however, without regard to the kind of substance involve[d], since both pertain
could be no two crimes committed, regardless of the two kinds of to dangerous drugs, provided it will be duly established during trial, it shall
prohibited/regulated drugs that were confiscated from the accused. There is in make the accused liable for a violation of the Dangerous Drugs Act. As the
this case a clear case of splitting one single criminal act into two separate possession of the dangerous drugs happened at the same time, same occasion,
crimes. same place, it cannot be denied that only one violation [was] committed under
Considering, however, that the penalty of this kind of offenses are based on the Dangerous Drugs Act, which is the possession of dangerous drugs. It is
the number of grams of the regulated/prohibited drugs, instead of having these not controverted that at the time of the apprehension, what was found in his
cases dismissed, the Office of the City Prosecutor of Dipolog City is hereby possession were [a] marijuana and shabu. We shall not discount the fact that
directed to amend its information by filing one single information.[11] the circumstances surrounding the search and seizure point to none other but a
The prosecution filed a motion for reconsideration,[12] arguing that violation of single intent to possess a dangerous drug; not to mention that there is only one
any of the provisions of RA 6425 constitutes a separate and distinct offense. occasion, as compared to other cases wherein the alleged offense happened on
The prosecution maintained that private respondent cannot be charged with different occasions, that with respect to the latter situation clearly it may not
violating Articles II and III of RA 6425 in one Information because that would be said [that] there is only one intent. It can be inferred from the action of the
be tantamount to charging him with more than one offense in a single accused and the surrounding circumstances that there was clearly one act
intended by the former to perpetrate; it is apparent, that the accused seems to
10 | P a g e
have a single intention, which is his intention to possess the said dangerous same time, on the same occasion, and in the same place, only one offense is
drugs. Thus, not just because it involves two different kinds of dangerous drugs committed under RA 6425, which is possession of dangerous drugs.
make the said act to constitute two offenses. As has been repeatedly said by
this Court, dangerous drugs refer to both prohibited and regulated drug. We cannot subscribe to the appellate courts ruling. Such interpretation dilutes
the severity of the crimes committed. RA 6425 does not prescribe a single
xxxx punishment for the various offenses enumerated in the law. On the contrary,
RA 6425 enumerates the punishable acts and its corresponding penalty. RA
Petitioner contends that since there are two acts of possession, one is 6425 also specifies the particular drugs and the corresponding quantity in the
possession of a prohibited drug and the other is possession of a regulated drug, imposition of penalty. For instance, under Section 20 of RA 6425, as amended,
for that reason, there are two separate offenses that the accused may be held the minimum quantity of marijuana and shabu for purposes of imposing the
liable for. Petitioner puts forward the argument that it is immaterial that maximum penalties are not the same. For marijuana, the quantity must be 750
the marijuana and shabu were seized in the same place and on the same grams or more while for shabu, it is 200 grams or more.
occasion. Petitioner further asserts that since two separate provisions of
theDangerous Drugs Act were violated, concomitantly, herein private The prosecution was correct in filing two separate Informations for the crimes
respondent may be held liable for two distinct crimes under the said law. We of illegal possession of shabu and illegal possession of marijuana. Clearly, the
hold otherwise. A careful look into the Dangerous Drugs Act would show that Legislature did not intend to lump these two separate crimes into just one crime
it specified the manner of commission of the particular acts that would amount of possession of dangerous drugs. Otherwise, there would be no need to
to a violation of the said law, and one of which is the possession or use of a specify the different kinds of drugs and the corresponding quantity in the
prohibited or regulated drug. Although the law has provided for two separate application of the appropriate penalty. Multiple offenses can be committed
articles covering the possession or use of a prohibited and a regulated drug, it under RA 6425 even if the crimes are committed in the same place, at the same
does not mean that there are two separate offenses that it speaks of. What time, and by the same person. Thus, this Court has upheld rulings of the lower
the Dangerous Drugs Act penalizes is the specific act of possession or use of courts convicting an accused charged with two separate crimes of illegal
dangerous drugs, among others, regardless of the fact that it is a prohibited or possession of shabu and illegal possession of marijuana, even if the crimes
a regulated drug.[18] (Emphasis in the original) were committed at the same time and in the same place.[19]

Besides, in People v. Tira, we have already ruled that illegal possession

The Issue of shabu and marijuana constitutes two separate crimes and therefore,
two Informations should be filed. We held:
The main issue in this case is whether the prosecution should file only one
Information for illegal possession of shabu and marijuana. 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
The Ruling of the Court 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
The petition is meritorious. 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
The Court of Appeals affirmed the Order and Resolution of the trial court that methamphetamine hydrochloride, a regulated drug; and, (b) violation of
the prosecution should file only one Information. The Court of Appeals held Section 8, in relation to Section 20 of the law, for their possession
that where possession of both prohibited and regulated drugs occurs at the of marijuana, a prohibited drug. Although only one Information was filed
against the appellants, nevertheless, they could be tried and convicted for the
11 | P a g e
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.

The Information is defective because it charges two crimes. The appellants

should have filed a motion to quash the Information under Section 3, Rule 117
of the Revised Rules of Court before their arraignment. They failed to do
so. Hence, under Rule 120, Section 3 of the said rule, the appellants may be
convicted of the crimes charged.[20]
Just like Tira, this case involves illegal possession of both shabu and
marijuana. Hence, it was only proper for the prosecution to file two
separate Informations since there were two distinct and separate crimes
involved. This is in accordance with the rule that a complaint or information
must charge only one offense, except when the law prescribes a single
punishment for various offenses.[21]
WHEREFORE, we SET ASIDE the Decision promulgated on 19 June
2001 of the Court of Appeals. We ANNUL the Resolution and the Order,
dated 3 April 2000 and 2 May 2000, respectively, of
the Regional Trial Court of Dipolog City, Branch 9.
We ORDER Judge MarcialG. Empleo to continue with the proceedings in
Criminal Case Nos. 9272 and 9279.

12 | P a g e