RUBEN DEL CASTILLO petitioner vs.

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES respondent

GR No. 185128
SEARCHES AND SEIZURES
Constructive Possession and Agents of Persons in Authority (barangay tanod)
Jan. 30, 2012

SYLLABUS

1987 CONSTITUTION ARTICLE III - Section 2. The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers,
and effects against unreasonable searches and seizures of whatever nature and for any purpose shall be
inviolable, and no search warrant or warrant of arrest shall issue except upon probable cause to be determined
personally by the judge after examination under oath or affirmation of the complainant and the witnesses he may
produce, and particularly describing the place to be searched and the persons or things to be seized.

REQUISITES FOR ISSUANCE OF SEARCH WARRANT – (1) probable cause is present; (2) such probable cause must
be determined personally by a judge; (3) the judge must examine, in writing and under oath or affirmation, the
complainant and the witnesses he or she may produce; (4) the applicant and the witnesses testify on the facts
personally known to them; (5) the warrant specifically describes the place to be searched and the things to be
seized.—A finding of probable cause needs only to rest on evidence showing that, more likely than not, a crime
has been committed and it was committed by the accused.

BARANGGAY TANOD AS AGENT OF PERSONS IN AUTHORITY- (LOCAL GOVERNMENT CODE SECTION 388) Persons
in Authority – For purposes of the Revised Penal Code, the punong barangay, sangguniang barangay members,
and members of the lupong tagapamayapa in each barangay shall be deemed as persons in authority in their
jurisdictions, while other barangay officials and members who may be designated by law or ordinance and charged
with maintenance of public order, protection and security of life x x x and any barangay member who comes to the
aid of persons in authority, shall be deemed agents of persons in authority.

CONSTRUCTIVE POSSESSION – 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 found.

RA 6425 SECTION 16 Article III Possession and Use of Regulated Drugs –The penalty of reclusion perpetua to
death and a fine ranging from five hundred thousand pesos to tem million pesos be imposed upon any person who
shall possess or use any regulated drug without the corresponding license or prescription, subject to the provisions
Section 17 (20) of RA 7659.

FACTS:

On September 13, 1997 a search warrant for the house of petitioner Del Castillo was issued by the RTC following a
test-buy of shabu from said petitioner by SPO3 Bienvenido Masnayon.
 A raid by the operatives on the house of petitioner was conducted where petitioner rand and hid in a Nipa Hut
5-10 meters away from his house in Mabolo, Cebu. SPO3 Masnayon requested his men to get a barangay tanod
to help them search the Nipa Hut which was said to have been used by the petitioner as a shop because he also
worked as an electrician.

The two brgy tanods lead the search and found a folded paper containing 4 packets of small crystal like
substance which later on tested positive for shabu.

RTC charged petitioner Del Castillo with a violation of Section 16 Article III RA 6425.

CA affirmed and denied the motion for consideration.

Petitioner argued in their petition for certiorari that:

1. CA erred in its application of the provisions of the Constitution, the Rules of Court and established
jurisprudence vis-a-vis validity of search warrant.

2. CA erred in ruling that the 4 packets of shabu allegedly found on the floor of the Nipa Hut or structure
are admissible in evidence against the petitioner, not only because the said court simply presumed that it was
used by petitioner or that petitioner ran for it for cover when the search team arrived at his residence, but also,
presuming that Nipa Hut was indeed used by the petitioner and the 4 packets of shabu were found thereat.

3. CA erred in its application of the element of “possession” as against the petitioner, as it was a violation
of established jurisprudence on the matter and that possession was not proven.

OSG made the following counter arguments:

1. Search warrant was issued by Exec. Judge Priscilla S. Agana Branch 24 RTC of Cebu is valid.

2. The 4 packets of Shabu seized inside the shop of petitioner are admissible in evidence.

3. The CA did not err in finding him guilty of illegal possession of prohibited drugs.

Hence this petition for certiorari.

ISSUE:

Whether or not the arguments of the petitioner have merit?

HELD:

The Court finds no merit on the first argument of the petitioner. A finding of probable cause needs only
to rest on evidence showing that, more likely than not, a crime has been committed and that it was
committed by the accused. The judge, in determining probable cause, is to consider the totality of the
circumstances made known to him and not by a fixed and rigid formula. SC therefore, is in no position
to disturb the factual findings of the judge which led to the issuance of the search warrant.
The second argument of the petitioner, the search warrant specifically designates the residence of the
petitioner as the place to be searched. Incidentally, the items were seized by the barangay tanod in a
nipa hut about 20 meters away from the residence of the petitioner. Hence, the confiscated items which
were found not in the place designated in the search warrant can be considered as fruits of an invalid
warrantless search, the presentation of which as evidence is a violation of petitioner’s constitutional
guaranty against unreasonable searches and seizures.

The contention of the OSG that assuming the items were seized in another place, it should still be
admissible as evidence because the person who found it is a barangay tanod who is a private individual
and the constitutional guaranty against unreasonable searches and seizures are applicable only against
government authorities. This is without merit. Article 152 of the RPC and the Local Government Code
Section 388 describes the function of a barangay tanod as an agent of persons in authority. Thus, the
search conducted was unreasonable and the confiscated items are inadmissible in evidence.

As for the third argument, while it is not necessary that the property to be searched or seized should be
owned by the person in the search warrant, there must be sufficient showing that the property is under
the appellant’s control or possession. Constructive possession, as referred to by the CA, exists when the
drug is under the control of the accused or when he has the right to exercise dominion and control of
the place where it was found. The records are void of evidence to show that the nipa hut was owned by
the petitioner and neither was it established that he used it as his shop.

The prosecution’s failure to prove that the nipa hut was under the petitioner’s control and dominion,
casts a reasonable doubt as to his guilt. Proof beyond reasonable doubt, or that quantum of proof
sufficient to produce a moral certainty that would convince and satisfy the conscience of those who act
in judgment is indispensable to overcome the constitutional presumption of innocence.

CA decision is REVERSED and SET ASIDE.

Petitioner Ruben Del Castillo is ACQUITTED on reasonable doubt.