Santos et al v People, GR No. 242656 [Case Digest]

 

Santos et al v People,

 GR No. 242656

Facts:

            Two separate criminal Informations were filed against Rowena and Ryan for violation of Section 11, Article II of RA 9165. PO1 Albao went to the house of Ryan, accompanied by PO2 Altes. He promptly informed Ryan of the search warrant. Ryan was handcuffed and was transferred to the room of Rowena where both accused were informed of the contents of the warrant. The live-in partner of Ryan was outside the house, so there was no one else left in Ryan's room when he was transferred aside from an officer who guarded the door. While converged at Rowena's house, they waited around five minutes for the arrival of the mandatory witnesses: DOJ rep. Solano, media rep. Adiel Auxillo, and Brgy. Kag. Breñis. In the presence of mandatory witnesses; the police found an alleged shabu in the kitchen which marked as "JAA-024-A." The officers also found another drug-items in the adjacent room. Photographs were also taken during the marking and inventory proceedings.

 

Issue:

            Whether or not the accused are guilty of the crimes charged.

 

Held:

            YES. In this case, the prosecution was able to establish the integrity of the corpus delicti and an unbroken chain of custody. The Court has explained in a catena of cases the four (4) links that should be established in the chain of custody of the confiscated item: first, the seizure and marking, if practicable, of the illegal drug recovered from the accused by the apprehending officer; second, the turnover of the illegal drug seized by the apprehending officer to the investigating officer; third, the turnover by the investigating officer of the illegal drug to the forensic chemist for laboratory examination; and fourth, the turnover and submission of the marked illegal drug seized from the forensic chemist to the court. In this case, the prosecution was able to prove all the links that should be established in the chain of custody.

 

 

èThe accused cannot avoid conviction if his right to exercise control and dominion over the place where the contraband is located, is shared with another.

 

èSince knowledge by the accused of the existence and character of the drugs in the place where he exercises dominion and control is an internal act, the same may be presumed from the fact that the dangerous drugs [are] in the house or place over which the accused has control or dominion, or within such premises in the absence of any satisfactory explanation.