G.R. No. 185128 ; January 30, 2012
RUBEN DEL CASTILLO @ BOY CASTILLO, Petitioner, vs. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Respondent.

FACTS

Pursuant to a confidential tip that petitioner Ruben del Castillo was engaged in selling shabu, police officers, after surveillance and a test-buy operation, secured a search warrant for his house. On September 13, 1997, around 3:00 p.m., police operatives went to serve the warrant at petitioner’s residence in Cebu City. Upon their arrival, someone shouted “raid,” prompting the police to immediately cordon the two-storey house. SPO3 Bienvenido Masnayon claimed he saw petitioner run towards a small nipa hut in front of his house. Masnayon gave chase but was unsuccessful. The police then returned to the residence, guarded the area, and requested barangay tanods. In the presence of a barangay tanod and petitioner’s elder sister, Dolly del Castillo, the police searched the house and the nipa hut. Nothing was found in the house, but a barangay tanod confiscated four plastic packs containing a white crystalline substance from the nipa hut. Forensic examination confirmed the substance was methamphetamine hydrochloride (shabu). An Information was filed charging petitioner with illegal possession of a regulated drug under Section 16, Article III of R.A. 6425, as amended. During trial, the prosecution presented the testimonies of the police officers and the forensic analyst. The defense presented petitioner and other witnesses, who testified that petitioner was at work at the time of the search and only learned of it upon returning home in the evening, and that the nipa hut was owned by his brother and used as a storage place by his father. The Regional Trial Court (RTC) found petitioner guilty. The Court of Appeals (CA) affirmed the RTC decision.

ISSUE

1. Whether Search Warrant No. 570-9-1197-24 was validly issued.
2. Whether the four packs of shabu allegedly found in the nipa hut are admissible in evidence against the petitioner.
3. Whether the element of “possession” was proven beyond reasonable doubt to convict petitioner of illegal possession of prohibited drugs.

RULING

The Supreme Court DENIED the petition and AFFIRMED the decisions of the lower courts.
1. On the Validity of the Search Warrant: The Court found no merit in petitioner’s claim of invalidity. The requisites for issuing a search warrant were satisfied: probable cause was personally determined by the judge after examining the applicant and witnesses in writing and under oath, particularly describing the place to be searched and the items to be seized. The petitioner failed to file a motion to quash the warrant and did not present clear and convincing evidence to show the applicant was conscious of any falsity in his assertions.
2. On the Admissibility of the Seized Drugs: The Court held the seized items were admissible. The constitutional guarantee against unreasonable searches and seizures applies only to government authorities. The evidence showed it was a barangay tanod, a private individual, who found and confiscated the drugs from the nipa hut. Furthermore, the search of the nipa hut was valid as an extension of the search of petitioner’s residence. Testimonies established that petitioner was seen running into the hut when the police arrived, and the hut was just in front of his house and under his control, making it within the permissible area of search under the warrant.
3. On the Element of Possession: The Court ruled that the element of illegal possession was proven beyond reasonable doubt. When prohibited drugs are found in a house or building belonging to and occupied by a person, the presumption arises that such person is in possession of the drugs. The defense failed to rebut this presumption. The prosecution evidence established that petitioner was seen fleeing into the nipa hut, which was under his control, and from which the drugs were recovered. His defense of alibi was weak and uncorroborated. The chain of custody of the evidence was also properly established.