DOCTRINES/PRINCPLES: LTL Cases 4. Gamido vs.

CA
The High Court noted that the witness, owing to
COMPONENTS OF LEGAL his long position as custodian of the records of
REASONING Malacanang Palace, is very well familiar not only
of the signature of the sitting president but the
1. Philippine British Assurance vs. signatures of previous presidents he had the
Intermediate Appellate Court privilege of serving under.
The rule, founded on logic, is a colorally
principle that general words and phrases in a It is also declared that under the Rules of Court,
statute should ordinarly be accorded their it is not required that the person identifying the
natural and general significance. handwriting of another must have seen the latter
write the document or sign it, but it is enough, if
2. People vs. Cabral the witness has seen purporting to be the
In reiterating the rules outlining the duties of a subject’s upon which it has acted or been
judge in determining the merit of an application charged.
for bail, it is observed that respondent judge did
disregard certain pieces of evidence for the
prosecution which should have been
considered. This is a clear case of non sequitur
where the order of the respondent judge was not
arrived at as a product of a logical process as
prescribed by the Rules.

3. People vs. Escobar

The Supreme Court said, “Every decision of a
court of record shall clearly and distinctly state
the facts and the law on which it is based” and
that the decision of the lower court failed on this
standard. “The inadequacy stems primarily from
the respondent’s judge tendency to generalize
and to form conclusions without detailing the
facts from which conclusion are deduced. Thus,
he concluded that the mataerial allegations of
the Amendend Information were the facts
without specifying which of the testimonies or
exhibits supported this conclusion. He rejected
the testimony of accused appelant Escober
because it awas allegedly replete with
contradictions without pointing out what there
contradictions consist of or what “vital details”
Escober shoud have recalled as a credible
witness.

Page 1 of 14
BURDEN OF PROOF 5. Cereno vs. CA

In medical negligences, it is settled that the

1. Penalber vs. Ramos complainant/patient has the burden of
Burden of proof is the duty of any party to establishing breach of duty on the part of the
present evidence to establish his claim or doctors or surgeons. It must be proven the such
defense by the amount of evidence required by breach of duty has a causal connection to the
the law, which is preponderance of evidence in resulting death of the patient. This can be
civil case. The party, whether plaintiff or proved by testimony of expert witnesses.
defendant, who asserts the affirmative of the
issue, has the burden of proof to obtain a 6. Claravall vs. Lim
favourable judgment. It is settled that the party alleging a fact has the
burden of proving it and mere allegation is not
2. MOF Company vs. Shin Yang evidence.
Brokerage
Basic is the rule in evidence the burden of proof 7. Aba vs. De Guzman
lies upon him who asserts it, not upon who In disbarment proceedings, the burden of proof
denies, since by the nature of things, he who rests upon the complainant, and for the court to
denies a fact cannot produce any proof of it. exercise its disciplinary powers, the case against
the respondent must be established by
3. VSD Realty vs. Uniwide Sales convincing and satisfactory proof. The evidence
In civil cases, the specific rule as to the burden required in suspension or disbarment
of proof is that the plaintiff has the burden of proceedings is preponderance of evidence.
proving the material allegations of the
complainant which are denied by the answer; According to the equipoise doctrine, when the
and the defendant has the burden of proving the evidence of the parties are evenly balanced or
material allegations in his answer, which sets up there is doubt on which side the evidence
the new matter as a defense. This rule does not preponderates, the decision should be against
mean shifting of the burden of proof but merely the party with the burden of proof.
means that each party must establish his own
case. 8. OCA vs. Gutierrez
The burden of proof is upon the party who
alleges the truth of his claim or defense or any
4. Monticalbo vs. Maraya fact in issue.
In administrative proceedings, the burden of
proof that respondent committed the acts
complained of rests on the complainant, who
must be able to support and prove by substantial
evidence his accusations against respondent.

Page 2 of 14
EVIDENCE 3. Ramos vs. Obispo
As to fraud, the rule is that he who alleges the
1. Country Bankers Insurance fraud affecting the transaction must substantiate
Corporation vs. Lagman his allegation with clear and convincing
The best evidence rule as encapsulated in Rule evidence.
130, Sec 3, of the Revised Rules of Civil
Procedure applies only when the content of such Preponderance of evidence is the weight, credit,
document is the subject of the inquiry. and value of the aggregate evidence on either
When the issues is only as to whether such side and is usually considered to be
documenta was actually executed, or exists, or synonymous with the term “greater weight of the
on the circumstances relevant to or surrounding evidence” or “greater weight of the credible
its execution, the best evidence rule does not evidence”
apply and testimonial evidence is admissible.
Moreover, under the best evidence rule, the
original document must be produced whenever
its contents are the subject of inquiry; A
photocopy, being a mere secondary evidence, is ADMISSIBILITY AND
not admissible unless it is shown that the
original is unavailable.
RELEVANCE

2. Gaw vs. Chua 1. People vs. De Guzman

Best evidence rule applies only when the subject
of inquiry is the content of the document. Where Generally, the motive of the accused in a
the issue is only the execution and existence of criminal case is immaterial and does mot have
a document, BER does not apply. to be proven. Proof of the same, however,
becomes relevant and essential when the
Any other substitutionary evidence is likewise identity of the assailant is in question.
admissible without need to acount for the
original. Moreover, production of the original Evidence is deemed admissible if it is relevant to
may be dispensed with, in the trial court’s the issue and more importantly, if it is not
discretion, whenever the opponent does not excluded by provision of law or by the Rules of
bona fide dispute the contents of the document Court. As to relevance, such evidence must
and no other useful purpose will be served by have such a relation to the fact in issue as to
requiring production. induce belief in its existence and non-existence.
Evidence to be believed must proceed not only
from the mouth of a credible witness but must be
credible in itself as to hurdle the test of
conformity with the knowledge and common
experience of mankind.

Page 3 of 14
TESTIMONY OF WITNESSES EXAMINATION

1. People vs. Taguibaya 1. People vs. Malngan

Testimony is generally confined to a personal The credibility given by trial courts to
knowledge, and therefore excludes hearsay. prosecution witness is an important aspect of
Thus, a witness can testify only to those facts evidence which appelate courts can rely on
which he knows of his personal knowledge because of its unique opportunity to observe
which are derived from his own perception, them, particularly their demeanor, conduct, and
except as otherwise provided under the Rules of attitude, during the direct and cross-examination
Court. by counsels.

The direct appreciation of testimonial demeanor 2. People vs. Astudillo

during examination, veracity, sincerity, and The Supreme Court will not disturb the judgment
candor was foremost the trial court’s domain, not of the trial court in assessing the credibility of the
that of a reviewing court that had no similar witnesses, unless there appears in the records
access to the witness at the time they testified. same facts or circumstances of weight and
influence which have been overlooked or the
2. People vs. Ochoa signidicance of which has been misinterpreted
This is known as the hearsay rule. The law, by the trial court. This is because the trial judge
however, provides for specific exceptions to the has unique opportunity, denied to the appelate
hearsay rule. One of the exceptions is the court, to observe the witnesses and to note their
entries in official records made in the demeanor, conduct and attitude under direct and
performance of duty by a public officer. In other cross-examination.
words, official entries are admissible in evidence
regardless whether the officer or person who
made them was presented and testified in court,
since these entries are considered prima facie
evidence of the facts stated therein. Other
recognized reason for this exception are
necessity and trustworthiness. The necesity
consists in the inconvenience and difficulty of
requiring the official’s attendnace as a witness to
testify the innumerable transactions in the
course of his duty. This will also unduly hamper
public business. The trustworthiness consists in
the presumption of regularity of performance of
official duty by a public officer.

Page 4 of 14
DEPENDENCE ON PRECEDENTS

1. Santiago vs. Valenzuela

3. Ting vs. Velez-Ting
Stare decisis et non quieta movere. Stand by the
The doctrine of adherence to precedents or
decisions and disturb not what is settled.
stare decisis was applied by the English courts
and was later adopted by the United States.
Although appellate courts are vested with
appellate jurisdiction to affirm modify or reverse
The doctrinal guidelines prescribed in decided
the judgments of the inferior courts, they cannot
cases should not be applied retroactively for
exercise it in a particular case unless and until
being contrary to the principle of stare decisis.
each and every one of the steps or requirements
The interpretation or construction of a law by
prescribed by law for the perfection of the
courts constitutes a part of the law as of the date
appeal have been complied with. If a party does
the statute is enacted. It is only when a prior
not take or perfect his appeal within the time
ruling of this Court is overruled, and a different
prescribed by law, the appellate court cannot
view is adopted, that the new doctrine may have
acquire appellate jurisdiction.
to be applied prospectively in favor of parties
who have relied on the old doctrine and have
2. Lambino vs. Comelec
acted in good faith, in accordance therewith
The maxim stare decisis et non quieta movere
under the familiar rule of "lex prospicit, non
translates “stand by the decisions and disturb
respicit."
not what is settled.” As used in our
jurisprudence, it means that once this court has
4. Chong vs. Secretary of Labor
laid down a principle of law as applicable to a
When a court has once laid down a principle,
certain state of facts, it would adhere to that
and apply it to all future cases, where facts are
principle and apply it to future cases in which the
substantially the same, regardless of whether
facts are substantially the same as in the earlier
the parties and properties are the same. Follow
controversy. There is considerable literature
past precedents and do not distrub what has
about whether this doctrine of stare decisis is a
been settled. Matters already decided on the
good or bad one, whether this doctrine is usually
merits cannot be subject of litigation again.
justified by arguments which focus on the
desirability of stability and certainty in the law
The principle of stare decisis does not mean
and also by notions of justice and fairness. It
blind adherence to precedents. The doctrines
would be a gross injustice to decide alternate
or rule laid down, which has been followed for
cases on opposite principles.
years, no matter how sound it may be, if found
to be contrary to law, must be abandoned. The
This Court must avoid revisiting a ruling
principle of stare decisis does not and
involving the constitutionality of a statute if the
should not apply when there is conflict
case before the Court can be resolved on some
between the precedent and the law. The duty
other grounds. Such avoidance is a logical
of this Court is to forsake and abandon any
consequence of the well-settled doctrine that
doctrine or rule found to be in violation of the law
courts will not pass upon the constitutionality of
in force.
a statute if the case can be resolved on some
other grounds.
Page 5 of 14
 5. Nielson and Co. vs. Lepanto 8. Fermin vs. People
Consolidated Mining The doctrine of stare decisis enjoins adherence
The rule of stare decisis cannot be invoked to judicial precedents. It requires courts in a
when there is no analogy between the material country to follow the rule established in a
facts of the decision relied upon and those of the decision of the Supreme Court thereof. That
instant case. decision becomes a judicial precedent to be
followed in subsequent cases by all courts in the
land. The doctrine of stare decisis is based on
6. Republic vs. Nillas the principle that once a question of law has
The doctrine of stare decisis compels respect for been examined and decided, it should be
settled jurisprudence, especially absent any deemed settled and closed to further argument.
compelling argument to do otherwise.
The ruling of the Supreme Court is binding to all
7. Pesca vs. Pesca courts. When the Court of Appeals makes a new
The "doctrine of stare decisis," ordained in ruling contrary to the ruling of the Supreme
Article 8 of the Civil Code, expresses that Court, that ruling of the CA does not bind the
judicial decisions applying or interpreting the law SC, unless it purposely adopts the same. Absent
shall form part of the legal system of the compelling reason, the Supreme Court cannot
Philippines. The rule follows the settled legal revisit its prior rulings as to modify it would
maxim - "legis interpretado legis vim obtinet" - amount to judicial legislation.
that the interpretation placed upon the written
law by a competent court has the force of
law. The interpretation or construction placed by
the courts establishes the contemporaneous
legislative intent of the law. The latter as so
interpreted and construed would thus constitute
a part of that law as of the date the statute is
enacted. It is only when a prior ruling of this
Court finds itself later overruled, and a different
view is adopted, that the new doctrine may have
to be applied prospectively in favor of parties
who have relied on the old doctrine and have
acted in good faith in accordance
therewith under the familiar rule of "lex prospicit,
non respicit."

Page 6 of 14
BEST EVIDENCE RULE PROOF & EVIDENCE
People v Manalansan
Sy v CA
We note that their marriage certificate and Finally, we come to the credibility of the
marriage license are only photocopies. So are witnesses. We have held in numerous cases
the birth certificates of their son Frederick and that the evaluation of the witnesses by the trial
daughter Farrah Sheryll. Nevertheless, these court is received on appeal with the highest
documents were marked as Exhibits during the respect because it is the trial court that has the
direct opportunity to observe them on the stand
course of the trial below, which shows that these
and detect if they are telling the truth or lying in
have been examined and admitted by the trial their teeth. That assessment is accepted as
court, with no objections having been made as correct by the appellate court-is indeed binding
to their authenticity and due execution. Likewise, upon it-in the absence of a clear showing that it
no objection was interposed to petitioner's was reached arbitrarily.
testimony in open court when she affirmed that
the date of the actual celebration of their There is no such showing in the case at bar.
While it may be conceded that there are a
marriage was on November 15, 1973. We are of
number of inconsistencies in the testimonies of
the view, therefore, that having been admitted the prosecution witness , they are not in our
in evidence, with the adverse party failing to view substantial enough to impair the veracity of
timely object thereto, these documents are the prosecution evidence of how the two crimes
deemed sufficient proof of the facts were committed by the accused-appellant. The
contained therein. maxim falsus in unus falsus in omnibus does
not lay down a categorical test of credibility.
While witnesses may differ in their recollections
(In Atty.’s words, BER can be waived if you did
of an incident, it does not necessarily follow from
not react during trial.) their disagreements that all of them should be
disbelieved as liars and their testimonies
MCC Industrial Sales v. S SANYONG completely discarded as worthless.
CORPORATION
The testimony of the accused-appellant is
The terms "electronic data message" and another matter. There is no proof whatever of
"electronic document," as defined under the his alleged manhandling; he did not present any
Electronic Commerce Act of 2000, do not medical certificate of his supposed injuries, and
include a facsimile transmission. Accordingly, neither did he complain to the prosecutor before
a facsimile transmission cannot be considered whom he says he subscribed a document which,
as electronic evidence. It is not the functional incidentally, was never presented in court by
equivalent of an original under the Best either the prosecution or the defense. And the
Evidence Rule and is not admissible motive he imputes to the prosecution witnesses
as electronic evidence. is not credible either as even his own witness
who was expected to corroborate his assertions
Since a facsimile transmission is not an actually belied them.
"electronic data message" or an "electronic
document," and cannot be considered as
electronic evidence by the Court, with greater
reason is a photocopy of such fax transmission
not electronic evidence.

Page 7 of 14
BURDEN OF PROOF PHILIPPINE NATIONAL
CONSTRUCTION CORP v MANDAGAN
SUPREME TRANSLINER, INC. V CA In termination cases, the burden of proof rests
upon the employer to show that the dismissal of
Burden of proof is the duty of a party to present
evidence to establish his claim or defense by the the employee is for just or authorized cause.
amount of evidence required by law, which is Failure to do so would mean that the dismissal is
preponderance of evidence in civil cases. 9 The not justified. This is consonant with the
party, whether plaintiff or defendant, who asserts guarantee of security of tenure in the
the affirmative of the issue has the burden of Constitution20 and reiterated in the Labor
proof to obtain a favorable judgment. For the Code.21 A dismissed employee is not required to
defendant, an affirmative defense is one
prove his innocence of the charges leveled
which is not a denial of an essential
ingredient in the plaintiffs cause of action, against him by his employer. Likewise, the
but one which, if established, will be a good determination of the existence and sufficiency of
defense - i.e. an "avoidance" of the claim. a just cause is to be exercised with fairness and
in good faith and after observing due process.
GAMBOA v CA

Allegations in the complaint must be duly proven

by competent evidence and the burden of proof
is on the party making the allegation.

CALALAS v CA

In quasi-delict, the negligence or fault should be

clearly established because it is the basis of the
action, whereas in breach of contract, the action
can be prosecuted merely by proving the
existence of the contract and the fact that the
obligor, in this case the common carrier, failed to
transport his passenger safely to his
destination.2 In case of death or injuries to
passengers, Art. 1756 of the Civil Code provides
that common carriers are presumed to have
been at fault or to have acted negligently
unless they prove that they observed
extraordinary diligence as defined in Arts. 1733
and 1755 of the Code. This provision
necessarily shifts to the common carrier the
burden of proof.

Page 8 of 14
BURDEN OF EVIDENCE
BAUTISTA v SARMIENTO

There is no denying that in a criminal case,

unless the guilt of the accused is established by
proof beyond reasonable doubt, he is entitled to
an acquittal. But when the trial court denies
petitioners' motion to dismiss by way of
demurrer to evidence on the ground that the
prosecution had established a prima facie case
against them, they assume a definite burden. It
becomes incumbent upon petitioners to adduce
evidence to meet and nullify, if not overthrow,
the prima facie case against them. 7 This is due
to the shift in the burden of evidence, and not of
the burden of proof as petitioners would seem to
believe.

When a prima facie case is established by the

prosecution in a criminal case, as in the case at
bar, the burden of proof does not shift to the
defense. It remains throughout the trial with the
party upon whom it is imposed—the
prosecution. It is the burden of evidence which
shifts from party to party depending upon the
exigencies of the case in the course of the
trial. 8 This burden of going forward with the
evidence is met by evidence which balances
that introduced by the prosecution. Then the
burden shifts back.

A prima facie case need not be countered by a

preponderance of evidence nor by evidence of
greater weight. Defendant's evidence which
equalizes the weight of plaintiff's evidence or
puts the case in equipoise is sufficient. As a
result, plaintiff will have to go forward with the
proof. Should it happen that at the trial the
weight of evidence is equally balanced or at
equilibrium and presumptions operate against
plaintiff who has the burden of proof, he cannot
prevail. 9

Page 9 of 14
EQUIPOISE RULE If doubts exist between the evidence
presented by the employer and the
employee, the scales of justice must be tilted
PEOPLE V SATURNO
in favor of the latter — the employer must
Where the inculpatory facts and circumstances affirmatively show rationally adequate
are capable of two or more explanations one of evidence that the dismissal was for a
which is consistent with the innocence of the justifiable cause.70 It is a time-honored rule that
accused and the other consistent with his guilt, in controversies between a laborer and his
then the evidence does not fulfill the test of master, doubts reasonably arising from the
moral certainty and is not sufficient to support a evidence, or in the interpretation of agreements
conviction.46 The equipoise rule provides that and writing should be resolved in the former's
where the evidence in a criminal case is favor.71 The policy is to extend the doctrine to a
evenly balanced, the constitutional greater number of employees who can avail of
presumption of innocence tilts the scales in the benefits under the law, which is in
favor of the accused.47 consonance with the avowed policy of the State
to give maximum aid and protection of labor.
VELEZ v. PEOPLE

We have said that it is better to acquit ten guilty

individuals than to convict one innocent
person.14 Every circumstance against guilt and in
favor of innocence must be considered. 15 Where
the evidence admits of two interpretations, one
of which is consistent with guilt, and the other
with innocence, the accused must be given the
benefit of doubt and should be acquitted. 16 In the
instant case, while it is possible that the accused
has committed the crime, there is also the
possibility, based on the evidence presented,
that he has not. He should be deemed to have
not for failure to meet the test of moral certainty.
Finally, an accused should not be convicted
by reason of the weakness of his alibi. It is
fundamental that the prosecution must prove
its case beyond reasonable doubt and must
not rely on the weakness of the evidence of
the defense.

MAYON HOTEL v ADARNA SUBSTANTIAL EVIDENCE

Page 10 of 14
ALCUIZAR v CARPIO
PEOPLE v SULAYAO
In administrative or disciplinary proceedings, the
burden of proving the allegations in the By its very nature, an "admission is the mere
complaint rests on the complainant. 11 While acknowledgment of a fact or of circumstance
substantial evidence would ordinarily suffice to from which guilt may be inferred, tending to
support a finding of guilt, the rule is a bit different incriminate the speaker, but not sufficient of
where the proceedings involve judges charged itself to establish his guilt." In other words, it is
with grave offense. Administrative a "statement by defendant of fact or facts
proceedings against judges are, by nature, pertinent to issues pending, in connection with
highly penal in character and are to be proof of other facts or circumstances, to prove
governed by the rules applicable to criminal guilt, but which is, of itself, insufficient to
cases. The quantum of proof required to support authorize conviction." 23 From the above
the administrative charges or to establish the principles, this Court can infer that an
ground/s for the removal of a judicial officer admission in criminal cases is insufficient to
should thus be more than substantial; they must prove beyond reasonable doubt the
be proven beyond reasonable doubt. commission of the crime charged.

GUTIERREZ v BELEN
Administrative charges against members of
the judiciary must be supported at least by
substantial evidence or such relevant
evidence as a reasonable mind might accept
as adequate to support a conclusion.

The Court will not shirk from its responsibility of

imposing discipline upon erring members of the
bench. At the same time, however, the Court
should not hesitate to shield them from
unfounded suits that only serve to disrupt rather
than promote the orderly administration of
justice. This Court could not be the instrument
that would destroy the reputation of any member
of the bench, by pronouncing guilt on mere
speculation

PROOF BEYOND REASONABLE

DOUBT
Page 11 of 14
CLEAR AND CONVINCING PEOPLE V CONCEPCION
EVIDENCE The presumption of regularity in the
performance of official duty will stand if the
ALONZO v CEBU COUNTRY CLUB defense fails to present clear and convincing
evidence that the public officers did not
properly perform their duty or that they were
Imputations of fraud must be proved by clear
inspired by an improper motive.
and convincing evidence. In an action for re-
conveyance based on fraud, he who charges
fraud must prove such fraud in obtaining a title.
In this jurisdiction, fraud is never presumed.
The strongest suspicion cannot sway
judgment or overcome the presumption of
regularity. "The sea of suspicion has no shore,
and the court that embarks upon it is without
rudder or compass."

VELOSO V CA (SUMBAT V CA)

Mere variance of the signatures cannot be
considered as conclusive proof that the same
were forged. Forgery cannot be presumed.
Forgery should be proved by clear and
convincing evidence and whoever alleges it
has the burden of proving the same.

PEOPLE V TOMOLIN
In a criminal case, when an accused invokes
self-defense, the onus is on him to establish
by clear and convincing evidence his
justification for the killing. He must rely on the
strength of his own evidence and not on the
weakness of the evidence for the prosecution.

VIAJE V PAMINTEL
Notarized documents/instruments, such as
the Deed of Reconveyance in this case, enjoys
the presumption of due execution. Only a
clear and convincing evidence to the
contrary can overcome this presumption.

Page 12 of 14
ADMISSIBILITY OF EVIDENCE Without the evidence of the marijuana allegedly
seized from Aminnudin, the case of the
prosecution must fall. That evidence cannot be
GAANAN v IAC
admitted, and should never have been
considered by the trial court for the simple fact is
The phrase "device or arrangement" in Section 1
of RA No. 4200, although not exclusive to that that the marijuana was seized illegally. It is the
enumerated therein, should be construed to fruit of the poisonous tree. The search was
comprehend instruments of the same or similar not an incident of a lawful arrest because there
nature, that is, instruments the use of which was no warrant of arrest and the warrantless
would be tantamount to tapping the main line of arrest did not come under the exceptions
a telephone. It refers to instruments whose
allowed by the Rules of Court. Hence, the
installation or presence cannot be presumed by
the party or parties being overheard because, by warrantless search was also illegal and the
their very nature, they are not of common usage evidence obtained thereby was inadmissible.
and their purpose is precisely for tapping,
intercepting or recording a telephone The evidence is inadmissible due to the
conversation. infirmity of arrest, without complying with
the requirements of in flagrante delicto.
An extension telephone is an instrument which
is very common especially now when the
extended unit does not have to be connected by MALACAT v CA
wire to the main telephone but can be moved
The warrantless arrest (in flagrante delicto) is
from place ' to place within a radius of a
kilometer or more. A person should safely not valid because no crime is being committed
presume that the party he is calling at the other at the time of arrest. Crime cannot be inferred
end of the line probably has an extension from a person’s action.
telephone and he runs the risk of a third party
listening as in the case of a party line or a VALDEZ v PEOPLE
telephone unit which shares its line with another.
In order to determine the admissibility of
It is a general rule that penal statutes must be evidence acquired through seizure, it is
construed strictly in favor of the accused. Thus, indispensable to ascertain whether or not the
in case of doubt as in the case at bar, on search is valid. The marijuana seized from a
whether or not an extension telephone is warrantless arrest, merely because the accused
included in the phrase "device or is suspicious-looking, is not admissible as
arrangement", the penal statute must be evidence. Warrantless arrest affects only
construed as not including an extension jurisdiction of the court over his person and not
telephone. in itself basis for his acquittal.

PEOPLE v AMINNUDIN

Page 13 of 14
CONSTRUCTIVE PEOPLE v LAGMAN
POSSESSION OF DRUGS The finding of illicit drugs and paraphernalia in a
house or building owned or occupied by a
People v Torres particular person raises the presumption of
knowledge and possession thereof which,
This crime is mala prohibita, and as such, standing alone, is sufficient to convict.
criminal intent is not an essential element.
However, the prosecution must prove that the ILLEGAL POSSESSION OF
accused had the intent to possess (animus REGULATED DRUGS
posidendi) the drugs. Possession, under the law,
includes not only actual possession, but also Illegal possession of regulated drugs is mala
constructive possession. Actual possession prohibita, and, as such, criminal intent is not
exists when the drug is in the immediate an essential element. However, the
physical possession or control of the accused. prosecution must prove that the accused had
On the other hand, constructive possession the intent to possess (animus posidendi) the
exists when the drug is under the dominion and drugs. Possession, under the law, includes not
control of the accused or when he has the right only actual possession, but
to exercise dominion and control over the place also constructive possession. Actual possession
where it is found. In the instant case, appellant exists when the drug is in the immediate
failed to present any evidence to rebut the physical possession or control of the accused.
existence of animus possidendi over the illicit On the other hand, constructive possession
drugs and paraphernalia found in his residence. exists when the drug is under the dominion and
His claim that he was not aware that such illegal control of the accused or when he has the right
items were in his house is insufficient. There is to exercise dominion and control over the place
constructive possession even if the accused is where it is found. Exclusive possession or
not at home. control is not necessary. The accused cannot
avoid conviction if his right to exercise control
ABUAN v PEOPLE and dominion over the place where the
contraband is located, is shared with another.
Possession may be actual or constructive. In
order to establish constructive possession, the
People must prove that petitioner had dominion
or control on either the substance or the
premises where found.64 The State must prove
adequate nexus between the accused and the
prohibited substance. In this case, there is
constructive possession of illegal drugs found in
the drawer in the bedroom of the accused, even
if she is not present.

Page 14 of 14