Case Summary (G.R. No. 171980)
Petitioner
People of the Philippines
Respondent
Olive Rubio Mamaril
Key Dates
Search and seizure: March 25, 2003 (9:30 PM)
Trial court conviction: April 21, 2004
Court of Appeals decision: August 31, 2005
Supreme Court decision: October 6, 2010
Applicable Law
• 1987 Philippine Constitution (presumption of innocence, protection against unreasonable searches and seizures)
• Republic Act No. 9165, Section 11, Article II (possession of dangerous drugs)
• Rules of Court, Rule 131, Section 3 (presumption of regularity of official duty)
• Rules on Criminal Procedure, Rule 126, Section 6 (search warrant requirements)
Procedural History
The trial court convicted Mamaril of illegal possession of methamphetamine hydrochloride (“shabu”) under Section 11, Article II of RA 9165. The Court of Appeals affirmed the conviction and sentence (12 years and 1 day to 20 years imprisonment, PHP 300,000 fine). Mamaril then appealed to the Supreme Court.
Search Operation and Seizure
Acting on Search Warrant No. 144C dated March 18, 2003, SPO4 Gotidoc and allied law enforcement personnel, in the presence of Barangay Kagawad Tabamo and after informing the appellant, searched the residence at Zone 1, Barangay Maliwalo, Tarlac City. They found one plastic sachet of white crystalline substance atop the refrigerator.
Laboratory Examination
The seized item was examined by Forensic Chemist Engr. Marcene Agala at the Tarlac Provincial Crime Laboratory. Qualitative testing confirmed the substance as 0.055 gram of methamphetamine hydrochloride.
Defense Allegations
Appellant claimed (1) the primary search yielded nothing, (2) the sachet was found only after police asked about her sleeping quarters, (3) police demanded PHP 20,000 to suppress charges, and (4) officers planted the drug when she refused to pay. She admitted she did not report the alleged extortion to superiors.
Trial Court Ruling
On April 21, 2004, the court found the prosecution proved the three elements of illegal possession beyond reasonable doubt: possession of a regulated drug, lack of legal authorization, and conscious and voluntary control. The defense failed to introduce sufficient evidence to create reasonable doubt.
Court of Appeals Ruling
The appellate court sustained the trial court’s findings, ruling that the search and seizure were legal and that the “shabu” was admissible. It affirmed the sentence imposed.
Issues on Further Appeal
Through new counsel, appellant challenged (1) the absence of probable cause supporting the search warrant, and (2) the application of the presumption of regularity over the constitutional presumption of innocence.
Elements of Possession Established
The Supreme Court concurred that all statutory elements under RA 9165 were present and not rebutted. Appellant’s frame-up claim lacked credible supporting evidence.
Frame-up Allegation and Presumptions
The Court emphasized that allegations of planting must be supported by strong, conv
...continue readingCase Syllabus (G.R. No. 171980)
Facts of the Case
- On March 25, 2003 at around 9:30 PM, SPO4 Alexis Gotidoc, Intel Operatives of Tarlac City Police Station and PDEA agents executed Search Warrant No. 144C (dated March 18, 2003) at Olive Rubio Mamaril’s residence in Zone 1, Barangay Maliwalo, Tarlac City.
- Barangay Kagawad Oscar Tabamo was invited to witness the proceedings. The search warrant was presented to the appellant, her rights were explained, and the purpose of the search was disclosed.
- During a systematic search, SPO4 Gotidoc discovered one plastic sachet containing a white crystalline substance on top of the refrigerator. A Certificate of Good Search and Confiscation Receipt was prepared; the appellant refused to sign.
- The seized substance was submitted to the Tarlac Provincial Crime Laboratory. Forensic Chemist Engr. Marcene G. Agala tested the sample and positively identified 0.055 g of methamphetamine hydrochloride (“shabu”).
Defense Version
- Appellant testified that the initial search yielded nothing in her house; Police Officer Pangilinan then asked where she slept, led officers to a nearby hut, and the sachet was found there.
- She claimed SPO4 Gotidoc and “Ma’am Dulay” offered to drop charges in exchange for ₱20,000; upon her refusal, she was detained.
- On cross-examination, appellant admitted she did not report the alleged extortion to superiors.
- Appellant alleged the police framed her and planted the drugs due to her refusal to pay.
Procedural History
- Information was filed for unlawful possession of 0.055 g of methamphetamine hydrochloride, in violation of Section 11, Article II of Republic Act No. 9165.
- Appellant pleaded not guilty, assisted by de-officio counsel.
- On April 21, 2004, the Regional Trial Cour