Macias, Krystal Ann Kriziah D.

I. What are the legal issues?

1. Whether or not the arrest, search and seizure of EJ was valid
2. Whether or not the inventory of the seized items without representative was
valid
3. Whether or not the seized items can be used as evidence

II. What is/are the applicable substantive and procedural laws

1. Chain of Custody Rule- The law prescribes a strict procedure for handling
object evidence, particularly the custody of confiscated dangerous drugs by
law enforcement agencies and by the courts. Non compliance with the said
procedure renders the evidence acquittal of the accused if there is no other
Sufficient evidence to convict him.
2. Rules of Court, Rule 113, Section 5
(a) When in his presence, the person to be arrested has committed, is
actually committing the offense;
(b) When an offense has just been committed and he has probable cause to
believe based on personal knowledge of facts or circumstance and that
the person to be arrested has committed it; and
(c) When the person to be arrested is a prisoner who has escaped from a
penal establishment or place where he is serving final judgment or is
temporarily confined while his case is pending, or has escaped while
being transferred from one confinement to another.
III.

Jurisprudence on Illegal Possesion of Dangerous Drugs

Elements of the crime of Illegal Possession of Dangerous Drugs

Under section 11, Article II of RA 9165, the elements of the offense of illegal
possession of dangerous drugs are: (1) the accused is in 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 and consciously possessed the said
drug.

1. Possession under the law includes not only actual possession, but also constructive
possession. (People v. Batoon, 636 SCRA 210, 211 [2010])

2. Existence of the drug is the very corpus delicti of the crime of illegal possession of
dangerous drugs and, thus a condition of sine qua non for conviction; In order to
establish the existence of the drug, its chain of custody must be sufficiently
established. (People v. Martinez, 637 SCRA 791,793 [2010])

3. Proper Procedure for the custody of seized or confiscated items in dangerous drugs
cases in order to ensure their identity and integrity thoroughly discussed. (People v.
Habana, 614 SCRA 433, 441 [2010])
 4. Possession of dangerous drugs constitutes prima facie evidence of knowledge or
animus possidendi sufficient to convict an accused in the absence of a satisfactory
explanation of such possession. (People v. Villahermosa, 650 SCRA 256,257 [2011])

5. Prosecutions for illegal possession of prohibited drugs necessitates that the

elemental act of possession of a prohibited substance be established with moral
certainty, together with the fact that the same is not authorized by law; the mere
fact of unauthorized possession will not suffice to create in a reasonable mind and
moral certainty required to sustain a finding of guilt. (Carino v. People, 581 SCRA
388, 398 [2009])

Jurisprudence on Animus Possidendi

1. Possession of dangerous drugs constitutes prima facie evidence of knowledge or

animus possidendi sufficient to convict an accused in the absence of a satisfactory
explanation of such possession. (People v. Villahermosa, 650 SCRA 256,257 [2011])

2. Possession must be with knowledge of the accused or that animus possidendi

existed with the possession or control of said articles. (People v. Dela Cruz 571 SCRA
469, 469 [2008])

3. The prosecution must prove that the accused had the intent to posses (animus
possidendi) the drugs. Possession under the law, includes not only possession, but
also constructive possession. (People v. Torres, 501 SCRA 591, 593[2006])

4. Animus possidendi is a state of mind which may be determined on a case to case

basis, taking into consideration the prior and coetaneous acts of the accused and the
surrounding circumctsances (People v. De Gracia 233 SCRA 716, 727 [1994])

5. Mere possession of a regulated drug per se constitutes prima facie evidence of

knowledge sufficient to convict an accused absent a satisfactory explanation of such
possession the onus probandi is shifted to the accused, to explain the absence of
knowledge or animus possidendi. (Miclat Jr. v. People 656 SCRA 539, 556 [2011])

Jurisprudence on Warrantless Search and Seizure

1. In the exceptional instances where a warrant is not necessary to effect a valid search
or seizure, what constitutes a reasonable or unreasonable search or seizure is purely
a judicial question, determinable from the uniqueness of the circumstances
involved, including the purpose of the search or seizure, the presence or absence of
probable cause, the manner in which the search and seizure was made, the place or
thing searched, and the character of the articles procured. (Valeroso v. Court of
Appeals, 598 SCRA 41 [2009])

2. The legality of an arrest affects only the jurisdiction of the court over the person of
the accused; a waiver of an illegal warrantless arrest does not also mean a waiver of
the inadmissibility of evidence seized during an illegal warrantless arrest. ( Valdez v.
People, 538 SCRA611, 613[2007]
3. There are circumstances in which the arrest, or search and seizure, although
warrantless, are nonetheless valid or reasonable. (People v. Belocura, 679 SCRA
318,319 [2012])

4. The constitutional proscription against warrantless searches and seizures admits of

exceptions. (People v. Belocura, 679 SCRA 318,319[2012])

5. The exception of search incidental to a lawful arrest includes a warrantless search

and seizure pursuant to an equally valid warrantless arrest which must precede the
search. (People v. Delos Reyes, 656 SCRA 417, 417 [2011])