People vs Dela Cruz Digest

People vs Dela Cruz 571 SCRA 469 Facts: On November 15, 2002, charges against accused-appellant were made before the RT for !llegal "ossession of #irearm and $mmunition and "ossession of %angerous %rug& The RT ac'ui ac'uitte tted d accus accuseded-ap appel pella lant nt of illega illegall posses possessio sion n of (rear (rearm m and and ammun ammuniti ition on but convicted him of possession of dangerous drugs& On %ecember ), 2005, accused-appellant (led a Notice of $ppeal of the RT %ecision claiming that* +1 the version of the prosecution should should not have have been been given given full full crede credenc nce e +2 the prose prosecut cution ion failed failed to prove prove be.ond be.ond reasonable doubt that he was guilt. of possession of an illegal drug +/ his arrest was patentl. illegal and + the prosecution failed to establish the chain of custod. of the illegal drug allegedl. in his possession&  The $ sustained accused-appellants accused-appellants conviction& !t pointed out that accusedappellant was positivel. identi(ed b. prosecution witnesses, rendering his uncorroborated denial and allegation of frame-up wea& $s to accused-appellants alleged illegal arrest, the $ held that he is deemed to have waived his ob3ection when he entered his plea, applied for bail, and activel. participated in the trial without 'uestioning such arrest& $ccused $ccused-app -appella ellant nt claims claims that the presenc presence e of all the elements elements of the o4ense of  possession of dangerous drug was not proved be.ond reasonable doubt since both actual and constructive possessions were not proved& e asserts that the shabu was not found in his actual possession, for which reason the prosecution was re'uired to establish that he had construc constructive tive possessi possession on over the shabu& shabu& e main mainta tain ins s that that as he had no cont contrrol and and dominion over the drug or over the place where it was found, the prosecution prosecution liewise failed to prove constructive possession& Issue: 6hether Issue: 6hether or not the court a 'uo gravel. erred in (nding the accused-appellant guilt. of violation of section 11, $rticle !!, R$ 7185 despite the failure of the prosecution to prove the commission of the o4ense charged be.ond reasonable reasonable doubt9 Ruling: The : ac'uit ac'uitted ted accuse accused-a d-appe ppella llant nt of viola violatio tion n of sec& sec& 11+2 11+2 of R$ 7185& 7185& The prosecution in this case clearl. failed to show all the elements of the crime absent a showing of either actual or constructive possession b. the accused-appellant& accused-appellant&  The elements in illegal illegal possession of dangerous dangerous drug are* +1 the accused accused is in possession possession of  an item or ob3ect which is identi(ed to be a prohibited drug +2 such possession is not authori;ed b. law and +/ the accused freel. and consciousl. possessed the said drug& On the third element, the court have held that the possession must be with nowledge of the accused or that animus possidendi ecer& The prosecution was not able to ade'uatel. prove that accused-appellant was committing an o4ense& $lthough accused-appellant merel. denied possessing the (rearm, the prosecutions charge was wea

absent absent the present presentation ation of the alleged alleged (rearm& (rearm& is arrest, arrest, independent independent of the bu.-bust bu.-bust opera operatio tion n targ targeti eting ng =o. =icol, =icol, was was there therefor fore e not lawfu lawfull as he was not prove proved d to be committing an. o4ense&