Del Castillo v.
People describes the function of a barangay tanod as an agent of persons
Pursuant to a confidential information that petitioner Del
Castillo was engaged in selling shabu, police officers headed by
SPO3 Bienvenido Masnayon, after conducting surveillance and
test-buy operation at the house of petitioner, secured a search
warrant from the RTC. Upon arrival to the residence of Del Castillo
to implement the search warrant, SPO3 Masnayon claimed that he
saw petitioner run towards a small structure, a nipa hut, in front
of his house. Masnayon chased him but to no avail, because he
and his men were not familiar with the entrances and exits of the
place. They all went back to the residence of Del Castillo and
requested his men to get a barangay tanod and a few minutes
thereafter, his men returned with two barangay tanods who
searched the house of petitioner including the nipa hut where the
petitioner allegedly ran for cover. His men who searched the
residence of the petitioner found nothing, but one of the
barangay tanods was able to confiscate from the nipa hut
several articles, including four (4) plastic packs containing
white crystalline substance.
Thus, an information was filed against Del Castillo for violation of
Section 16, Article III of R.A. 6425 and was found guilty by the
RTC and affirmed by the Court of Appeals. Petitioner filed with the
Supreme Court the petition for certiorari contending among others
that CA erred in finding him guilty beyond reasonable doubt of
illegal possession of prohibited drugs, because he could not
be presumed to be in possession of the same just because
they were found inside the nipa hut.
Section 16, Article III of R.A. 6425: Possession or Use of Regulated
Drugs - The penalty of imprisonment ranging from six months and one day
to four years and a fine ranging from six hundred to four thousand pesos
shall be imposed upon any person who shall possess or use any regulated
drug without the corresponding license or prescription.
Issue: WON petitioner violated Section 16, Article III of R.A. 6425
by mere presumption that the petitioner has dominion and control
over the place where the shabu was found.
NO! While it is not necessary that the property to be searched or
seized should be owned by the person against whom the search
warrant is issued, there must be sufficient showing that the
property is under appellants control or possession. (The CA, in
its Decision, referred to the possession of regulated drugs by the
petitioner as a constructive one.) The records are void of any
evidence to show that petitioner owns the nipa hut in question
nor was it established that he used the said structure as a
shop. The RTC, as well as the CA, merely presumed that
petitioner used the said structure due to the presence of electrical
materials, the petitioner being an electrician by profession. With the
prosecution's failure to prove that the nipa hut was under
petitioner's control and dominion, there casts a reasonable doubt as
to his guilt.
DECISION: Petitioner Ruben del Castillo is ACQUITTED on
reasonable doubt.
___________________OTHER DETAILS__________________
OSGs Counter-Argument: when prohibited and regulated drugs
are found in a house or other building belonging to and occupied by
a particular person, the presumption arises that such person is in
possession of such drugs in violation of law, and the fact of finding
the same is sufficient to convict. DENIED!
The assistance of the barangay tanods was sought by the
police authorities who effected the searched warrant: the same
barangay tanods therefore acted as agents of persons in authority.
Article 152 of the Revised Penal Code defines persons in
authority and agents of persons in authority as:
x x x any person directly vested with jurisdiction, whether as an individual or
as a member of some court or governmental corporation, board or
commission, shall be deemed a person in authority. A barangay captain and
a barangay chairman shall also be deemed a person in authority.
The Local Government Code also contains a provision which
in authority. Section 388 of the Local Government Code reads:
SEC. 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 the
maintenance of public order, protection and security of life and
property, or the maintenance of a desirable and balanced
environment, and any barangay member who comes to the aid of
persons in authority, shall be deemed agents of persons in
authority.
By virtue of the above provisions, the police officers, as well
as the barangay tanods were acting as agents of a person in
authority during the conduct of the search. Thus, the search
conducted was unreasonable. and the confiscated items are
inadmissible in evidence.
The confiscated items: having been found in a place other than
the one described in the search warrant, can be considered as
fruits of an invalid warrantless search, the presentation of which
as an evidence is a violation of petitioner's constitutional
guaranty against unreasonable searches and seizure.
In considering a criminal case, it is critical to start with the law's own
starting perspective on the status of the accused - in all criminal
prosecutions, he is presumed innocent of the charge laid unless the
contrary is proven beyond reasonable doubt.
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.
___________________________________________________
Petitioner insists that there was no probable cause to issue the
search warrant, the nipa hut located about 20 meters away from
his house is no longer within the permissible area that may be
searched by the police officers due to the distance and that the
search warrant did not include the same nipa hut as one of the
places to be searched. DENIED!
The requisites for the issuance of a search warrant are: (1)
probable cause is present; (2) such probable cause must be
determined personally by the 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; and (5) the
warrant specifically describes the place to be searched and the
things to be seized.
Probable cause for a search warrant: is defined as such facts
and circumstances which would lead a reasonably discreet and
prudent man to believe that an offense has been committed and
that the objects sought in connection with the offense are in the
place sought to be searched.
Probable cause demands: more than bare suspicion; it requires
less than evidence which would justify conviction. 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, and must employ a flexible, totality of the circumstances
standard.
Substantial basis means that the questions of the examining judge
brought out such facts and circumstances as would lead a
reasonably discreet and prudent man to believe that an offense has
been committed, and the objects in connection with the offense
sought to be seized are in the place sought to be searched. A
review of the records shows that in the present case, a substantial
basis exists.
___________________________________________________
Petitioner asserts that the warrant issued must particularly
describe the place to be searched and persons or things to be
seized in order for it to be valid. A designation or description that
points out the place to be searched to the exclusion of all others,
and on inquiry unerringly leads the peace officers to it, satisfies the
constitutional requirement of definiteness. DENIED!

The Search Warrant: specifically designates or describes the

residence of the petitioner as the place to be searched.
___________________________________________________
In every prosecution for the illegal possession of shabu, the
following essential elements must be established: (a) the
accused is found in possession of a regulated drug; (b) the person
is not authorized by law or by duly constituted authorities; and (c)
the accused has knowledge that the said drug is a regulated drug.

People v. Tira: This crime is mala prohibita, and, as such, criminal

intent is not an essential element. However, the prosecution must
prove that the accused had the intent to possess (animus
posidendi) the drugs. Possession, under the law, includes not only
actual possession, but also constructive possession. Actual
possession exists when the drug is in the immediate physical
possession or control of the accused. On the other hand,
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.
(Exclusive possession or control is not necessary). The accused
cannot avoid conviction if his right to exercise control and dominion
over the place where the contraband is located, is shared with
another.

--------------------------------------NOTE------------------------------------------
(a) The government agent admitted under oath that he had no
personal knowledge of the facts which were to serve as a
basis for the issuance of warrant, instead, he had
knowledge of them through mere information secured from
a person he considered liable.

(b) COURT: oath required must refer to the truth of the facts
within the personal knowledge of his witnesses, because
the purpose thereof is to convince the committing
magistrate, not the individual making the affidavit and
seeking the issuance of the warrant, of the existence of
probable cause.

(c) TEST OF SUFFICIENCY: whether it had been drawn in

such a manner that perjury could be charged thereon and
affiant be held liable for damages caused.