G.R. No.

L-13785

October 8, 1918

THE UNITED STATES, plaintiff-appellee,

vs.
TOMAS ADIAO, defendant-appellant.
Victoriano Yamzon for appellant.
Attorney-General Paredes for appellee.

MALCOLM, J.:
The defendant was charged in the Municipal Court of the city of Manila with the crime of theft.
He was found guilty of the lesser crime of frustrated theft. He appealed to the Court of First
Instance of the city of Manila and again he was found guilty of the crime of frustrated theft, and
was sentenced to pay a fine of P100, with subsidiary imprisonment in case of insolvency, and to
pay the costs.
The sole error assigned on appeal is that the lower court erred in holding that the defendant was
guilty of the crime of theft as dis closed by the facts appearing of record. We have examined the
evidence carefully and from our study are unable to say that the proof is contrary to the findings
of the lower court. Stated in one sentence, the defendant, Tomas Adiao, a customs inspector,
abstracted a leather belt valued at P0.80, from the baggage of a Japanese named T. Murakami,
and secreted the belt in his desk in the Custom House, where it was found by other customs
employees.
Based on these facts, the Court is of the opinion that the crime can not properly be classified as
frustrated, as this word is defined in article 3 of the Penal Code, but that since the offender
performed all of the acts of execution necessary for the accomplishment crime of theft. The fact
that the defendant was under observation during the entire transaction and that he was unable
to get the merchandise out of the Custom House, is not decisive; all the elements of the
completed crime of theft are present. The following decisions of the supreme court of Spain are
in point:
The defendant was charged with the theft of some fruit from the land of another. As he
was in the act of taking the fruit he was seen by a policeman, yet it did not appear that
he was at that moment caught by the policeman but sometime later. The court said: ". . .
The trial court did not err . . . in considering the crime as that of consummated theft
instead of frustrated theft inasmuch as nothing appears in the record showing that the
policemen who saw the accused take the fruit from the adjoining land arrested him in the
act and thus prevented him from taking full possession of the thing stolen and even its
utilization by him for an interval of time. (Decision of the supreme court of Spain, October
14, 1898.)

Defendant picked the pocket of the offended party while the latter was hearing mass in a
church. The latter on account of the solemnity of the act, although noticing the theft, did not do
anything to prevent it. Subsequently, however, while the defendant was still inside the church,
the offended party got back the money from the defendant. The court said that the defendant
had performed all the acts of execution and considered the theft as consummated. (Decision of
the supreme court of Spain, December 1, 1897.)
The defendant penetrated into a room of a certain house and by means of a key opened up a
case, and from the case took a small box, which was also opened with a key, from which in turn
he took a purse containing 461 reales and 20 centimos, and then placed the money over the
cover of the case; just at this moment he was caught by two guards who were stationed in
another room near-by. The court considered this as consummated robbery, and said: " . . . The
accused . . . having materially taken possession of the money from the moment he took it from
the place where it had been, and having taken it with his hands with intent to appropriate the
same, he executed all the acts necessary to constitute the crime which was thereby produced;
only the act of making use of the thing having been frustrated, which, however, does not go to
make the elements of the consummated crime. (Decision of the supreme court of Spain, June
13, 1882.)
There exists the aggravating circumstance that advantage was taken by the offender of his
public position. Wherefore, in view of the provisions of articles 517 and 518, No. 5, of the Penal
Code, and there being present one aggravating circumstance compensated by no mitigating
circumstances, the penalty must be imposed in the maximum degree.1awph!l.net
Judgment is reversed and the defendant and appellant is sentenced to three months and one
day of arresto mayor, with the costs of all instances against him. The merchandise in question,
attached to the record as Exhibit A, shall be returned to the lawful owner, T. Murakami. So
ordered.

G.R. No. L-5848

April 30, 1954

THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee,

vs.
SY PIO, alias POLICARPIO DE LA CRUZ, defendant-appellant.
Exequiel Zaballero, Jr. for appellant.
Assistant Solicitor General Guillermo E. Torres and Solicitor Florencio Villamor for appellee.
LABRADOR, J.:
This is an appeal from a judgment of the Court of First Instance of Manila finding the defendantappellant herein Sy Pio, alias Policarpio de la Cruz, guilty of frustrated murder against the
person of Tan Siong Kiap, and sentencing him to suffer an indeterminate sentence of 6 years, 1
month, and 11 days of prision mayor, to 14 years, 8 months, and 1 day of reclusion temporal, to
indemnify the offended party Tan Siong Kiap in the sum of P350, without subsidiary
imprisonment in case of insolvency, and to pay the costs. The case was appealed to the Court
of Appeals, but that court certified it to this Court under the provisions of section 17 (4) of
Republic Act No. 296, on the ground that the crime charged was committed on the same
occasion that the defendant-appellant had committed crime of murder, with which the
defendant-appellant was also charged.
The evidence for the prosecution shows that early in the morning of September 3, 1949, the
defendant-appellant entered the store at 511 Misericordia, Sta Cruz, Manila. Once inside he
started firing a .45 caliber pistol that he had in his hand. The first one shot was Jose Sy. Tan
Siong Kiap, who was in the store and saw the accused enter and afterwards fire a shot at Jose
Sy, asked the defendant-appellant, "What is the idea?" Thereupon defendant-appellant turned
around and fired at him also. The bullet fired from defendant-appellant's pistol entered the right
shoulder of Tan Siong Kiap immediately ran to a room behind the store to hide. From there he
still heard gunshot fired from defendant-appellant's pistol, but afterwards defendant-appellant
ran away.
Tan Siong Kiap was brought to the Chinese General Hospital, where his wound was treated. He
stayed there from September 3 to September 12, 1949, when he was released upon his request
and against the physician's advice. He was asked to return to the hospital for further treatment,
and he did so five times for a period of more than ten days. Thereafter his wound was
completely healed. He spent the sum of P300 for hospital and doctor's fees.

The defendant-appellant shot two other persons in the morning of September 3, 1949, before
shooting and wounding Tan Siong Kiap; one was Ong Pian and the other Jose Sy. On
September 5 information was received by the Manila Police Department that defendantappellant was in custody of the Constabulary in Tarlac, so a captain of the Manila police by the
name of Daniel V. Lomotan proceeded to Tarlac. There he saw the defendant-appellant and had
a conversation with him. On this occasion defendant-appellant and had a conversation with him.
On this occasion defendant-appellant admitted to Lomotan that his victims were Tan Siong Kiap,
Ong Pian, and Jose Sy. The Constabulary in Tarlac also delivered to Lomotan the pistol used by
the defendant-appellant, marked Exhibit C, and its magazine, Exhibit C-1, both of which the
Constabulary had confiscated from the defendant-appellant. The defendant-appellant was
thereupon delivered to the custody of Lomotan, and the latter brought him to Manila, where his
statement was taken down in writing. This declaration was submitted at the time of the trial as
Exhibit D, and it contains all the details of the assaults that defendant-appellant 3 against the
persons of Tan Siong Kiap, Ong Pian, and Jose Sy. This written statement was taken down on a
typewriter and afterwards signed by the defendant-appellant in both his Chinese and Filipino
names, the latter being Policarpio de la Cruz.
According to the declaration of the defendant-appellant, some months prior to September 3,
1949, he was employed as an attendant in a restaurant belonging to Ong Pian. Defendantappellant's wife by the name of Vicenta was also employed by Ong Pian's partner, Eng Cheng
Suy. Prior to September 3 the relatives of his wife had been asking the latter for help, because
her father was sick. Defendant-appellant asked money from Ong Pian, but the latter could only
give him P1. His wife was able to borrow P20 from her employer, and this was sent to his wife's
parents in Cebu. Afterwards defendant-appellant was dismissed from his work at the restaurant
of Ong Pian, and he became a peddler. Ong Pian presented a list of the sums that defendantappellant had borrowed from him, and these sums were deducted from the salary of his wife.
Defendant-appellant did not recognize these sums as his indebtedness, and so he resented
Ong Pian's conduct.
As to Tan Siong Kiap, the confession states that a few days before September 3, 1949,
defendant-appellant had been able to realize the sum of P70 from the sales of medicine that he
peddled. He laid his money in a place in his room, but the following morning he found that it had
disappeared from the place in which he had placed it. Tan Siong Kiap and Jose Sy, upon the
discovery of the loss of money, told defendant-appellant that he must have given the money to
his wife, and that nobody had stolen it. After this incident of the loss, the defendant-appellant
used to hear Tan Siong Kiap and Jose Sy and other Chinamen say that the money had not been
actually stolen, but that he lost it in gambling. Because of these accusations against him, he
nurtured resentment against both Tan Siong Kiap and Jose Sy.
So early in the morning of September 3, while a Chinaman by the name of Ngo Cho, who the
possessor of a caliber .45 pistol, was away from his room, defendant-appellant got his pistol and
tucked it in his belt. With this pistol he went to the restaurant at 822 Ongpin, and there shot Ong
Pian. After shooting him, he proceeded to 511 Misericordia, in store where Jose Sy and Tan
Siong Kiap were, and there he fired at them. Then he escaped to Legarda Street, in Sampaloc,

where he borrowed P1 from his relatives. From there he went to Malabon, to the house of his
mother, to whom he told he had killed two persons and from he asked money.
The foregoing is the substance of the written declaration made by the defendant-appellant in
Exhibit D on September 6, 1949. At the time of the trial, however, he disowned the confession
and explained that he signed it without having read its contents. He declared that it was not he
who shot the three victims, but it was one by the name of Chua Tone, with whom he had
previously connived to kill the three other victims. He introduced no witnesses, however, to
support his denial. Neither did he deny that he admitted before Captain Lomotan having killed
the three persons, or having been found in Tarlac in possession of the caliber .45 pistol, Exhibit
C, and its magazine, Exhibit C-1. In his cross-examination he admitted many of the incidents
mentioned in the confession, especially the cause of his resentment against his victims Ong
Pian, Jose Sy, and Tan Siong Kiap.
The trial court refused to believed his testimony, and therefore, found him guilty of the crime
charged.
On this appeal counsel for the defendant-appellant claims that the trial court erred in not finding
that Tan Siong Kiap received the shot accidentally from the same bullet that had been fired at
Jose Sy, and in finding that defendant-appellant has committed a crime distinct and separate
from that of murder for the slaying of Jose Sy. We find no merit in this contention. According to
the uncontradicted testimony of the offended party Tan Siong Kiap, when the latters saw
defendant-appellant firing shots he asked him why he was doing so, and the defendantappellant, instead of answering him, turned around and fired at him also. It is not true, therefore,
that the shot which hit him was fired at Sy.
It is also contended that the evidence is not sufficient to sustain the judgment of conviction. We
also find no merit in this contention. The evidence submitted to prove the charge consists of: the
uncontradicted testimony of the victim himself; the admissions made verbally by the defendantappellant before Captain Lomotan in Tarlac; the fact that the defendant-appellant had escaped
and was found in Tarlac; his possession of the .45 caliber pistol coupled with the fact, attested to
by the testimony of the physician who examined and treated the wounds of Tan Siong Kiap, that
the wounds found in his person must have been caused by the caliber .45 bullet; and, lastly, the
confession of the defendant-appellant himself, Exhibit D, which he was not able to impugn. As
against this mass of evidence, defendant-appellant has only made a very unbelievable story
that it was not he but another that had committed the crime charged. His admissions at the time
of the trial regarding the incidents, as well as the cause of his having assaulted his victims,
coincide exactly with the reasons given in his written confession. This shows that he had made
the confession himself, for nobody but himself could have known the facts therein stated. The
claim that the offense has not been proved beyond reasonable doubt must be dismissed.
The defendant-appellant lastly claims that the lower court also erred in sentencing him to pay an
indemnity of P350. The offended party testified that he actually spent P300 for hospital and

doctor's fees, and that he was confined in the hospital for nine days. The above facts stand
uncontradicted. This assignment of error must also be dismissed.
It is lastly contended that the defendant-appellant should be found guilty only of less serious
physical injuries instead of the crime of frustrated murder as defendant-appellant admitted in his
confession in the open court that he had a grudge against the offended party, and that he
connived with another to kill the latter. The intent to kill is also evident from his conduct in firing
the shot directly at the body of the offended party.
But while intent to kill is conclusively proved the wound inflicted was not necessarily fatal,
because it did not touch any of the vital organs of the body. As a matter of fact, the medical
certification issued by the physician who examined the wound of the offended party at the time
he went to the hospital, states that the wound was to heal within a period of fourteen days, while
the offended party actually stayed in the hospital for nine days and continued receiving
treatment thereafter five time for the period of more than ten days, or a total of not more than
thirty days. The question that needs to be determined, therefore, is: Did the defendant-appellant
perform all the acts of execution necessary to produce the death of his victim?
In the cases of U.S. vs. Eduave, 36 Phil., 209, People vs. Dagman, 47 Phil., 768 and People vs.
Borinaga, 55 Phil., 433, this Court has held that it is not necessary that the accused actually
commit all the acts of execution necessary to produce the death of his victim, but that it is
sufficient that he believes that he has committed all said acts. In the case of People vs.
Dagman, supra, the victim was first knocked down by a stone thrown at him, then attacked with
a lance, and then wounded by bolos and clubs wielded by the accused, but the victim upon
falling down feigned death, and the accused desisted from further continuing in the assault in
the belief that their victim was dead. And in the case of People vs. Borinaga, supra, the accused
stabbed his intended victim, but the knife with which he committed the aggression instead of
hitting the body of the victim, lodged in the back of the chair in which he was seated, although
the accused believed that he had already harmed him. In both these cases this Court held that
of the crime committed was that of frustrated murder, because the subjective phase of the acts
necessary to commit the offense had already passed; there was full and complete belief on the
part of the assailant that he had committed all the acts of execution necessary to produce the
death of the intended victim.
In the case at bar, however, the defendant-appellant fired at his victim, and the latter was hit, but
he was able to escape and hide in another room. The fact that he was able to escape, which
appellant must have seen, must have produced in the mind of the defendant-appellant that he
was not able to his his victim at a vital part of the body. In other words, the defendant-appellant
knew that he had not actually all the acts of execution necessary to kill his victim. Under these
circumstances, it can not be said that the subjective phase of the acts of execution had been
completed. And as it does not appear that the defendant-appellant continued in the pursuit, and
as a matter of fact, he ran away afterwards a reasonable doubt exist in our mind that the
defendant-appellant had actually believed that he has committed all the acts of execution or

passed the subjective phase of the said acts. This doubt must be resolved in favor of the
defendant-appellant.
We are, therefore, not prepared to find the defendant-appellant guilty of frustrated murder, as
charged in the information. We only find him guilty of attempted murder, because he did not
perform all the acts of execution, actual and subjective, in order that the purpose and intention
that he had to kill his victim might be carried out.
Therefore, the judgment appealed from should be, as it is hereby, modified and the defendantappellant is found guilty of the crime of attempted murder, and the sentence imposed upon him
reduced to an indeterminate penalty of from 4 years, 2 months, and 1 day of prision
correccional to 10 years of prision mayor. In all other respects the judgment is affirmed. With
costs against the defendant-appellant.

G.R. No. 168695*

December 8, 2008

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, appellee,

vs.
MARIBEL LAGMAN and ZENG WA SHUI, appellants.
DECISION
CARPIO MORALES, J.:
On appeal is the June 6, 2005 Court of Appeals Decision1 affirming that of the Regional Trial
Court (RTC) of Angeles City, Pampanga, Branch 59 convicting herein appellants Zeng Wa Shui
(Zeng) alias "Alex Chan," and Maribel Lagman (Maribel) of violation of Republic Act (RA) 6425
(Dangerous Drugs Act), as amended by RA 7659.
Culled from the 7-volume trial court records of the case are the following facts:

After receiving reports of clandestine operation of shabu laboratories in Pampanga, the National
Bureau of Investigation (NBI) conducted in January 1996 surveillance of a piggery farm in Porac
which was reportedly being used as a front therefor.
From the surveillance, it was gathered that three Chinese nationals, namely Zeng Wa Shui
(Zeng), Li Wien Shien (Li) and Jojo Gan (Gan) occupied the farm, and Maribel frequented the
place while Zeng and Li would go over to her rented house in 2609 San Francisco, Balibago,
Angeles City which she was sharing with her Chinese common-law husband, Jose "Bobby" Yu.
In the early morning of March 14, 1996, two NBI teams, armed with search warrants,
simultaneously raided the Porac farm and the Balibago residence.
The search of the farm, covered by Search Warrant No. 96-102, yielded no person therein or
any tell-tale evidence that it was being used as a shabu laboratory. Only pigs in their pens, and
two (2) containers or drums the contents of which when field-tested on-the-spot by NBI chemist
Januario Bautista turned out to be acetone and ethyl,2 were found.
The leader and members of the raiding team thereupon brought their vehicles inside the farm
and closed its gates, expecting that the suspected operators would arrive. At around 10 a.m., a
car driven by Li arrived and entered the premises after the NBI operatives opened the gates.
A search of Lis vehicle, a blue Toyota Corolla sedan, yielded a digital weighing scale and a
packet with crystalline substance weighing approximately 317.60 grams which when field-tested
by NBI Chemist Januario Bautista, was found positive for shabu.
At around 12:00 noon, Zeng arrived at the farm on board an L-300 Mitsubishi van bearing a blue
drum containing liquid which, when field-tested on the spot also by NBI Chemist Bautista, was
found positive for shabu.3
With respect to the search of the Balibago residence by the other NBI team by virtue of Search
Warrant No. 96-101, since Maribel was out, she was fetched from her place of business. They
found two padlocked rooms inside the house, but with Maribel claiming that she did not have
any keys thereto, the team forcibly opened the rooms which yielded 18 big plastic containers
containing liquid substance, 30 sacks containing a white powdery substance, 10 plastic
containers also containing a white powdery substance, plastic gallons, a refrigerator, a big
blower, pails, plastic bags, a big glass flask, and a .25 caliber handgun.
The liquid substance contained in 6 of the 18 plastic containers was subjected to a chemical
field-test and was found positive for shabu. The contents of the drums turned out to be alcohol
solvents; the powder in the sacks was determined to be ephedrine hydrochloride; and the liquid
in the 10 plastic containers was determined to be sodium hydroxide. These chemicals are used
in the manufacture of shabu.
Two separate informations against Maribel were thus filed before the Regional Trial Court (RTC)
of Angeles City, the first for possession of 527 kilograms of shabu in liquid form, docketed as

Criminal Case No. 96-377, and the second for possession of 1,615 kilograms of ephedrine
hydrochloride, a controlled substance, docketed as Criminal Case No. 96-378. Thus she was
charged as follows:
Crim. Case No. 96-377:
That on or about March 14, 1996 in Angeles City, and within the jurisdiction of this
Honorable Court, the above-named accused, not being lawfully authorized to possess or
use any regulated drug, did then and there willfully, unlawfully, feloniously and knowingly
have in her possession approximately 527 kilograms of Methamphetamine
Hydrochloride, a regulated drug in violation of the above-cited law.
CONTRARY TO LAW.
Crim. Case No. 96-378:
That on or about March 14, 1996 in Angeles City, and within the jurisdiction of this
Honorable Court, the above-named accused, not being lawfully authorized to possess or
use any regulated drug, did then and there willfully, unlawfully, feloniously and knowingly
have in her possession approximately 1,615.0 kilograms of Ephedrine Hydrochloride, a
regulated drug in violation of the above-cited law.
CONTRARY TO LAW.
On the strength of the confiscated regulated substances found in his vehicle, Li was indicted
before the RTC of Angeles City, in Criminal Case No. 96-379, for violation of Section 16 vis--vis
Section 2(e), (f), (m), Article III of the Dangerous Drugs Act, viz:
That on or about March 14, 1996 in Porac, Pampanga and within the jurisdiction of this
Honorable Court, the above-named accused, not being lawfully authorized to possess or
use any regulated drug, did then and there willfully, unlawfully, feloniously and knowingly
have in his possession approximately 317.60 grams of Methamphetamine
Hydrochloride, a regulated drug, in violation of the above-cited law.
CONTRARY TO LAW.
And Zeng was indicted in Criminal Case No. 96-380, for violation of Article I vis--vis Section 21
also of the Dangerous Drugs Act, viz:
That on or about March 14, 1996 in Porac, Pampanga and within the jurisdiction of this
Honorable Court, the above-named accused, not being lawfully authorized to possess or
use any regulated drug, did then and there willfully, unlawfully, feloniously and knowingly
have in his possession approximately 78 kilograms of Methamphetamine Hydrochloride,
a regulated drug in violation of the above-cited law.

CONTRARY TO LAW.
The cases were consolidated in Branch 59 of the Angeles City RTC.
Maribel disclaimed knowledge that regulated substances and paraphernalia were being kept in
the padlocked rooms in the house which she had since 1994 been sharing with Yu who had
disappeared. She averred that it was Yu who placed the containers and sacks in the rooms
which he padlocked in November 1995 and January 1996, telling her that they were fertilizers
and restaurant items belonging to a friend who was to pick them up; that it was Yu who
shouldered the rent of the house and provided the household expenses; and that Yu was away
most of the time because he was based in Manila and would only go to the house once a month
for a three-day visit.
Maribel admitted that Zeng had gone to her house for a visit, and that she was twice brought by
Yu to the piggery in Porac to meet his other Chinese friends. She denied, however, any
knowledge of Yus activities, averring that she was not home most of the time as she was
tending to a store at the public market which she co-owns with her mother.
Li denied knowledge of or involvement in the alleged operation of the shabu laboratory. He even
denied knowing Gan and averred that he only went to the farm to buy piglets.
Zeng denied knowing Maribel or Li. He admitted knowing Gan, however, and having gone to the
piggery four times as Gan wanted to hire him as manager of the piggery.
By Decision4 dated July 20, 1988,5 the trial court acquitted Li but convicted Zeng and Maribel,
imposing upon them the death penalty and ordering them to pay a fine of P1,000,000
and P2,000,000, respectively.
Zeng and Maribel appealed to the Court of Appeals.
Zeng contended that the alleged shabu found inside the blue plastic container was inadmissible
in evidence, it having been illegally obtained; and that the prosecution failed to prove a basic
element of the crime charged that he did not have authority to possess those substances.
For her part, Maribel insisted that the evidence seized by virtue of the search warrant was not
admissible against her as the warrant did not specifically state her name; and that the
prosecution failed to prove her actual or constructive possession or intent to possess the
substances. She reiterated her claim that she had no knowledge that dangerous
drugs/substances were being kept in the locked rooms of her house, she having believed her
common-law husbands above-stated explanation.
The Court of Appeals affirmed Maribels and Zengs conviction by Decision6 dated June 6, 2006,
and denied Maribels motion for reconsideration by Resolution7 dated March 30, 2007; hence
they interposed the present appeal.

Maribel faults the appellate court for affirming that Search Warrant No. 96-101 is valid and the
pieces of evidence seized by virtue thereof are admissible; for ruling that she had constructive
possession of the substances found in her rented house; and for failing to consider the
documentary evidence she submitted, such as her loan applications and Deed of Sale of her car
which, to her, proves that she had no knowledge of the drug syndicates operations; otherwise,
there would have been no need to borrow money or sell her car.
Zeng, on the other hand, insists that the 78 kilograms of methamphetamine hydrochloride in
liquid form contained in the blue plastic container was illegally obtained and was not even
formally offered in evidence, hence, the same should have been excluded; that the prosecution
failed to prove that he had no authority to possess the allegedshabu confiscated from his
person; and that the conclusion that the liquid contents of the blue plastic drum is
methamphetamine hydrochloride is erroneous, no quantitative test as to its purity having been
conducted.
The petition fails.
The essential elements of the crime of illegal possession of regulated drugs are the following: 1)
the actual possession of an item or object which is identified to be a prohibited drug; (2) such
possession is not authorized by law; and (3) the accused freely or consciously possessed the
said drug.8
[Illegal possession of regulated drugs] 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 alsoconstructive 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.9 (Emphasis and
underscoring supplied)
The finding of illicit drugs and paraphernalia in a house or building owned or occupied by a
particular person raises the presumption of knowledge and possession thereof which, standing
alone, is sufficient to convict.10
Maribel failed to present any convincing evidence to rebut the presumption of knowledge and
possession of the regulated substances and paraphernalia found in her residence. As tenant of
the house, she had full access to, full control of and dominion over the rooms.
On why she did not even check the rooms, if what were stored therein in November 1995 and
January 1996 were indeed fertilizer and restaurant paraphernalia which the alleged owners

would allegedly pick up anytime, and why she did not have keys thereto, assuming that indeed
she had none, she proffered no explanation.
As for Maribels argument that there would have been no need for her to borrow money or sell
her car if she was involved in the operations of a drug ring, the same is a non sequitur. In any
event, it does not suffice to rebut the presumption of her constructive knowledge and
possession of the regulated substances.
Respecting her contention that Search Warrant No. 96-101 is invalid for not having identified her
with particularity, the same does not lie. Under Sec. 3 and 4, Rule 126 of the Rules of Court, the
requirements for the issuance of a valid search warrant are:
Sec. 3. Requisites for issuing search warrant.
A search warrant shall not issue but upon probable cause in connection with one specific
offense to be determined by the judge or such other responsible officer authorized by
law after examination under oath or affirmation of the complainant and the witnesses he
may produce, and particularly describing theplace to be searched and the things to
be seized.
Sec. 4. Examination of complainant; record. The judge must, before issuing the warrant, personally examine in the form of searching
questions and answers, in writing and under oath the complainant and any witnesses he
may produce on facts personally known to them and attach to the record their sworn
statements together with any affidavits submitted." (Emphasis and underscoring
supplied)
Contrary to Maribels contention, the aforementioned Rule does not require that the search
warrant should identify with particularity the person against whom it is directed. It suffices that
the place to be searched andthings to be seized are described. The pertinent portion of Search
Warrant No. 96-10111 reads:
xxxx
It appearing to the satisfaction of the undersigned after examining under oath SA Renato
M. Vaflor of NBI and his witness that there are reasonable grounds to believe that
Violation of Sec. 14-A of RA 6425 as amended has been committed or is about to be
committed and there are good and sufficient reasons to believe that
@ROMEO/JOSEPH/TITO YU/ALEX CHAN @ APE" and/or OCCUPANTS of 2609 San
Francisco Street, Angeles City has in his/their possession or control the following:
a. Methylamphetamine (Shabu) in liquid or crystal form;

b. Phenyl-2-Propanone, Ephedrine, Pseudo-ephedrine, foremic acid,

Benzylmethylketone and ethanol;
c. Weighing scale, burner, graduated cylinder, beakers, glassware, melting point
apparatus, titration apparatus, refrigerators, freezers.
x x x x (Emphasis supplied)
Clearly, the wording of Search Warrant No. 96-101 sufficiently complies with the requirement for
a valid search warrant as it describes the place to be searched and the items to be seized.
As for Zengs arguments, they are a mere rehash of those already raised before the appellate
court. As correctly held by the appellate court, the testimonies of five members of the NBI
raiding team that a blue drum containing liquid was found in the van driven by Zeng -- which
liquid, when field-tested, was found to be methamphetamine hydrochloride -- deserves full faith
and credence, absent any showing that these officers were not properly performing their duty or
that they were inspired by any improper motive.
As to the contention that the blue drum was not included as subject of Search Warrant No. 96102, hence, illegally obtained, the same fails. No doubt, the Constitution prohibits search and
seizure without a judicial warrant, and any evidence obtained without such warrant is
inadmissible for any purpose in any proceeding. The prohibition is not absolute, however.
Search and seizure may be made without a warrant and the evidence obtained therefrom may
be admissible in the following instances: (1) search incident to a lawful arrest; (2) search of a
moving motor vehicle; (3) search in violation of customs laws; (4) seizure of evidence in plain
view; and (5) when the accused himself waives his right against unreasonable searches and
seizures.
The search made on the van driven by Zeng falls within the purview of the "plain view" doctrine.
Objects falling in plain view of an officer who has a right to be in a position to
have that view are subject to seizure even without a search warrant and may be
introduced in evidence. The 'plain view' doctrine applies when the following requisites
concur: (a) the law enforcement officer in search of the evidence has a prior
justification for an intrusion or is in a position from which he can view a particular
area; (b) the discovery of evidence in plain view is inadvertent; (c) it is
immediately apparent to the officer that the item he observes may be evidence of
a crime, contraband or otherwise subject to seizure. The law enforcement officer
must lawfully make an initial intrusion or properly be in a position from which he can
particularly view the area. In the course of such lawful intrusion, he came inadvertently
across a piece of evidence incriminating the accused. The object must be open to eye
and hand and its discovery inadvertent.12 (Emphasis and underscoring supplied)
Search Warrant No. 96-102 named Zeng, a.k.a. "Alex Chan," as one of the subjects thereof.
When he arrived in his L-300 van at the piggery during the NBIs stakeout, he came within the

area of the search. The drum alleged to have contained the methamphetamine was placed in
the open back of the van,13 hence, open to the eye and hand of the NBI agents. The liquid-filled
drum was thus within the plain view of the NBI agents, hence, a product of a legal search.
Zengs claim that the prosecution failed to prove that he had no license or authority to possess
methamphetamine hydrochloride likewise fails. The general rule is that if a criminal charge is
predicated on a negative allegation, or that a negative averment is an essential element of a
crime, the prosecution has the burden to prove the charge. However, this rule is not without
exception.
Where the negative of an issue does not permit of direct proof, or where the facts are
more immediately within the knowledge of the accused, the onus probandi rests upon
him. Stated otherwise, it is not incumbent upon the prosecution to adduce positive
evidence to support a negative averment the truth of which is fairly indicated by
established circumstances and which, if untrue, could readily be disproved by the
production of documents or other evidence within the defendants knowledge or
control. For example, where a charge is made that a defendant carried on a certain
business without a license (as in the case at bar, where the accused is charged
with the sale of a regulated drug without authority), the fact that he has a license
is a matter which is peculiarity within his knowledge and he must establish that
fact or suffer conviction.14 (Emphasis supplied)
In the case at bar, the negative averment that Zeng had no license or authority to
possess shabu could have easily been disproved by presenting a copy of the license or
authority or any other document evidencing authority to possess it. This he failed to do.
As to Zengs contention that no quantitative examination was conducted to establish
the purity of the methamphetamine hydrochloride contained in the drum, which should have
been the basis of determining the imposable penalty per Dangerous Drugs Board Resolution
No. 3, dated May 9, 1979, requiring that both qualitative and quantitative examination should be
done on seized drugs, the same fails too.
The NBI forensic chemist already testified that the liquid contained therein, when subjected to
laboratory examination, tested positive for methamphetamine hydrochloride. Such finding is
presumed to be representative of the entire contents of the container unless proven
otherwise.15 No contrary proof was presented by Zeng, however.
More importantly, what the Dangerous Drugs Act punishes is the possession of the
dangerous or regulated drugs or substances without authority. Whether the substance is
pure or unadulterated is not material; hence, quantitative examination of the substance to
determine its purity is not indispensable for conviction. Neither does it affect the penalty
imposed, for any person who unless authorized by law possesses shabu or
methylamphetamine hydrochloride, shall be punished with reclusion perpetua to death; and a
fine ranging from five hundred thousand pesos to ten million pesos if two hundred (200) or more
grams thereof are found in his possession.16

Zeng was found by the trial court to have possessed 78 kilograms of shabu without mitigating or
aggravating circumstances; thus, the Court imposed the correct penalty of death and a fine
of P1,000,000.00.
However, in view of the enactment on June 24, 2006 of R.A. No. 9346, An Act Prohibiting the
Imposition of Death Penalty in the Philipines, the death penalty can no longer be imposed.
Appellants must thus be sentenced to suffer the penalty of reclusion perpetua without eligibility
for parole.
WHEREFORE, the Decision appealed from is AFFIRMED with MODIFICATION. Appellants
Maribel Lagman and Zeng Wa Shui are sentenced to suffer the penalty of reclusion
perpetua without eligibility for parole and to pay aFINE of Two Million (P2,000,000.00) Pesos
and One Million (P1,000,000.00) Pesos, respectively.
SO ORDERED.