People vs. Tira

Constructive possession of dangerous drugs is established when the drug is found in a house or premises over which the accused jointly exercises dominion and control, and knowledge of the drug’s existence and character may be presumed from its presence there absent a satisfactory explanation. Further, an information charging two offenses in a single count is not invalid if the accused fails to move to quash before arraignment; under Rule 120, Section 3, the court may convict for as many offenses as are charged and proved.

Police received reports of rampant illegal drug activity at the residence of spouses Amadeo and Connie Tira on Perez Extension Street, Urdaneta, Pangasinan. Surveillance on February 24, 1998 confirmed more than twenty individuals entering and leaving the house. Based on this surveillance, the police applied for and obtained Search Warrant No. 3 from the Municipal Trial Court, commanding a search for shabu, drug paraphernalia, and a weighing scale. The warrant was implemented on March 9, 1998. The search yielded a brick of marijuana, tea bags of marijuana leaves, sachets of shabu, cash, and paraphernalia, all found under the bed in an inner room where Amadeo Tira slept. Both spouses were charged in a single Information with illegal possession of shabu and marijuana. The trial court convicted each spouse in separate decisions.

• Nature: Spouses Amadeo Tira and Connie Tira were charged in a single Information with illegal possession of methamphetamine hydrochloride (shabu), a regulated drug, and marijuana, a prohibited drug, in violation of Section 8 in relation to Section 20 of Rep. Act No. 6425, as amended, for items seized from their residence on March 9, 1998.
• Surveillance and Search Warrant: On February 24, 1998, SPO3 Asidelio Manibog and a surveillance team observed more than twenty persons entering and leaving the Tira house. A person approached confirmed Amadeo Tira sold shabu. P/Supt. Victorio directed the officers to prepare an affidavit of surveillance. On March 6, 1998, the team executed the affidavit, and P/C Insp. Danilo Bumatay Datu applied for a search warrant before the MTC. Judge Aurora A. Gayapa issued Search Warrant No. 3 after examining the applicants, commanding a search of the Tira residence — particularly the first room on the right side and the two rooms at Perez south — for shabu, drug paraphernalia, and a weighing scale.
• Search and Seizure: At 2:35 p.m. on March 9, 1998, a police team, accompanied by Barangay Kagawad Mario Conwi, arrived at the house. Ernesto Tira, Amadeo’s father, was at the porch and led them inside. Amadeo Tira was found sleeping in the first room’s inner room. With Amadeo Tira, Kagawad Conwi, and Ernesto Tira present, the team searched the inner room and found under the bed where Amadeo slept: 9 sachets of suspected shabu, 6 opened sachets with shabu residue, one brick of dried marijuana leaves weighing 721 grams, 24 tea bags of marijuana leaves (total marijuana weight 807.3 grams), 6 disposable lighters, aluminum foil, empty plastic tea bags, and cash of ₱12,536.00 in a shoulder bag on top of the television. A sachet of shabu was also seized from Nelson Tira outside. An inventory was prepared and signed by Amadeo Tira, his father, and Kagawad Conwi. The items were turned over to the PNP Crime Laboratory, which confirmed the substances as methamphetamine hydrochloride (shabu) and marijuana.
• Defense of Amadeo Tira: Amadeo claimed the inner room was rented to his nephew Chris Tira and the latter’s live-in partner Gemma Lim, who were banana vendors and not present during the search. He denied knowledge of the drugs and asserted the items were found in his nephew’s room. He presented Kagawad Conwi (who testified to the search) and neighbor Alfonso Gallardo, who stated the house originally had two rooms and later a divider, and that boarders occupied the first room. The trial court rejected the defense, noting the couple did not present Chris Tira and Gemma Lim, no personal belongings of tenants were found, and Amadeo failed to provide their identities or whereabouts.
• Defense of Connie Tira: Connie testified she was a fruit vendor, her husband a delivery boy; the room was occupied by three boarders (two male, one female) who were inside during the search. She was in the kitchen nursing her baby when policemen barged in and searched all rooms, finding items in the boarders’ room. She denied fleeing. Her neighbor Joy Fernandez testified she was at the Tira house watching television at the time. The trial court disbelieved her, citing inconsistencies with Amadeo’s version (two boarders vs. three) and lack of evidence of boarders. The court held that as the wife residing in the conjugal home, she necessarily had joint control and possession of the prohibited items.

• Illegality of Search: Appellants contended that the search was illegal because it was conducted in the absence of the room’s lawful occupants — Chris Tira and Gemma Lim — in violation of Section 7, Rule 126 of the Rules of Court. Consequently, the seized items were inadmissible as fruits of a poisonous tree, and the prosecution failed to prove that the appellants owned or possessed the prohibited drugs.
• Insufficiency of Evidence of Possession: Appellants maintained that mere ownership of the house cannot give rise to a presumption of possession and control over items found in a room leased to boarders. Connie Tira specifically argued she had no knowledge of the drugs and was merely a housewife, and that she never fled after the search, contrary to the trial court’s inference.
• Conspiracy: Even assuming Amadeo Tira’s guilt, the trial court erred in finding that the spouses conspired to possess the drugs, as there was no proof of a common design or agreement.

• Validity of Search: The Office of the Solicitor General (OSG) argued that the search warrant was validly issued based on personal knowledge and searching questions, and the search was conducted in the presence of Amadeo Tira and his father, fully satisfying the requirements of Rule 126.
• Constructive Possession: The OSG maintained that the appellants had joint control and dominion over the entire house, including the room where the drugs were found. Their claim of a lease was unsubstantiated, and knowledge of the drugs is presumed from their presence in the conjugal home.
• Conspiracy and Guilt of Connie Tira: The OSG contended that as spouses residing in the conjugal dwelling, both necessarily had knowledge and control over the contraband, establishing conspiracy and making Connie Tira equally culpable.

• Validity of Search and Admissibility of Evidence: Whether the search of the inner room violated Section 7, Rule 126 of the Rules of Court because the supposed lessees were absent, rendering the seized items inadmissible in evidence.
• Sufficiency of Evidence of Possession: Whether the prosecution proved beyond reasonable doubt that the appellants had knowledge, control, and possession of the marijuana and shabu found under the bed, given the defense that the room was leased to third parties.
• Conspiracy: Whether the trial court correctly found that the spouses conspired to possess the dangerous drugs, thereby making Connie Tira equally liable.
• Duplicity of Information and Proper Penalties: Whether the Information, which charged possession of both marijuana and shabu in a single count, was valid, and what are the proper offenses committed and the corresponding penalties imposable.

• Validity of Search and Admissibility: The search was valid. Amadeo Tira, the lawful occupant, was present in the inner room and was the very person under whose bed the drugs were found. His father Ernesto was also present, along with Barangay Kagawad Conwi. The claim that the room was leased to Chris Tira and Gemma Lim was unsubstantiated and contradicted by Connie’s own inconsistent testimony about boarders. There was no violation of Section 7, Rule 126, and the seized evidence was admissible.
• Sufficiency of Evidence of Possession: The essential elements of illegal possession were proven. Possession under the Dangerous Drugs Act includes constructive possession — when the drug is under the dominion and control of the accused or when the accused has the right to exercise dominion and control over the place where it is found. Exclusive possession is not required; shared control suffices. Knowledge of the existence and character of the drug, being an internal act, may be presumed from its presence in the house or premises over which the accused exercises control and dominion, absent a satisfactory explanation. The marijuana and shabu were found under a bed in an inner room of the appellants’ house where both spouses resided and to which both had full access. Connie Tira provided no credible evidence that she was excluded from the room or lacked knowledge. Both were therefore in constructive possession.
• Conspiracy: The finding of conspiracy was not indispensable to Connie Tira’s conviction; because possession need not be exclusive, both spouses, as joint occupants with dominion over the house, were equally in possession of the contraband. The trial court’s conclusion that they conspired was supported by the evidence of their joint custody of the drugs in the conjugal home.
• Duplicity of Information and Proper Penalties: The Information, which charged possession of both marijuana (a prohibited drug) and shabu (a regulated drug) in a single count, was defective for duplicity. However, the appellants failed to file a motion to quash before arraignment. Under Rule 120, Section 3 of the Rules of Court, when two or more offenses are charged in a single complaint or information and the accused fails to object before trial, the court may convict of as many offenses as are charged and proved. The appellants were thus properly convicted of two separate crimes: (a) violation of Section 8, Article II of Rep. Act No. 6425, as amended (illegal possession of 807.3 grams of marijuana), punishable by reclusion perpetua and a fine of ₱1,000,000.00; and (b) violation of Section 16, Article III of the same law (illegal possession of 1.001 grams of shabu). For the shabu, the quantity of 1.001 grams fell within the range carrying a penalty of prision correccional. Applying the Indeterminate Sentence Law, the penalty imposed was an indeterminate sentence of four (4) months and one (1) day of arresto mayor in its medium period, as minimum, to three (3) years of prision correccional in its medium period, as maximum.

• Constructive Possession of Dangerous Drugs — Possession under the Dangerous Drugs Act includes constructive possession, which exists when the drug is under the dominion and control of the accused or when the accused has the right to exercise dominion and control over the place where it is found. Exclusive possession is not necessary; a showing of non-exclusive possession does not exonerate the accused. Knowledge of the existence and character of the drug may be presumed from the fact that the drug is in the house or premises over which the accused exercises control or dominion, absent any satisfactory explanation. This rule was applied to hold both spouses liable for the drugs found under the bed in their conjugal home, as both had joint dominion and access to the room, and neither offered a satisfactory explanation rebutting the presumption of knowledge.
• Duplicity of Offenses; Waiver of Objection — When an information charges two or more offenses in a single count, it is defective for duplicity. However, the defect is waived if the accused fails to file a motion to quash before arraignment. Under Rule 120, Section 3 of the Revised Rules of Court, the court may thereafter convict the accused of as many offenses as are charged and proved, imposing the penalty for each offense separately. The Court relied on this rule to sustain the dual convictions for illegal possession of marijuana and illegal possession of shabu despite the single Information.

• "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."
• "Since 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 drug is in the house or place over which the accused has control or dominion, or within such premises in the absence of any satisfactory explanation."
• "The Information is defective because it charges two crimes. The appellants should have filed a motion to quash the Information under Section 3, Rule 117 of the Revised Rules of Court before their arraignment. They failed to do so. Hence, under Rule 120, Section 3 of the said rule, the appellants may be convicted of the crimes charged."

• People v. De Guzman, 315 SCRA 573 (2001) — Enumerated the essential elements of violation of Section 8 of Rep. Act No. 6425: actual possession of a prohibited drug, lack of authority, and conscious possession; applied to confirm the elements the prosecution must prove.
• People v. Ramos, 186 SCRA 184 (1990) — Clarified that possession includes both actual and constructive possession and that the prosecution must prove animus possidendi (intent to possess); relied upon for the definition of possession in drug cases.
• People v. Rice, 131 Cal. Rptr. 330 (1976) and other American cases — Cited as persuasive authority on the principle that constructive possession exists when the drug is under the dominion and control of the accused, and that non-exclusive possession does not exonerate.
• People v. Baluda, 318 SCRA 503 (1999) — Established the presumption that knowledge of the drug’s existence and character may be inferred from its presence in the premises under the accused’s control, absent a satisfactory explanation; directly applied to sustain the conviction.

• Section 8, Article II, Republic Act No. 6425, as amended by Rep. Act No. 7659 — Unlawful possession of a prohibited drug; applied to the 807.3 grams of marijuana. Penalty range reclusion perpetua to death; reclusion perpetua imposed in the absence of qualifying circumstances, with a fine.
• Section 16, Article III, Republic Act No. 6425, as amended — Unlawful possession of a regulated drug; applied to the 1.001 grams of shabu. The penalty graduated by quantity; for less than one gram to 49.25 grams, the penalty is prision correccional, which formed the basis for the indeterminate sentence.
• Rule 120, Section 3, Revised Rules of Court — Empowers the court to convict for two or more offenses charged in a single information when the accused fails to object before trial; used to uphold the convictions for both marijuana possession and shabu possession despite the duplicitous Information.
• Section 7, Rule 126, Rules of Court — Requires that a search be made in the presence of the lawful occupant or two witnesses of sufficient age and discretion; held not violated because Amadeo Tira, the lawful occupant, was present.

Vitug, Panganiban, Quisumbing, Ynares-Santiago, Sandoval-Gutierrez, Carpio, Austria-Martinez, Corona, Carpio-Morales, Azcuna, and Tinga, JJ., concur. Davide, Jr., C.J., on official leave. Puno, J., on official leave.

None.