Source: http://lawlibrary.chanrobles.com/index.php?option=com_content&amp;view=article&amp;id=49823:gr-166061-2007&amp;catid=1494&amp;Itemid=566
Timestamp: 2019-04-19 08:29:12+00:00

Document:
ANDY QUELNAN y QUINO, Petitioner, v. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Respondent.
This Petition for Review seeks the reversal of the Decision1 of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CR No. 22001 dated 12 November 2004, affirming the Decision2 of the Regional Trial Court (RTC), Branch 138, Makati City, in Criminal Case No. 96-1498, that found Andy Quelnan y Quino3 (petitioner) guilty of violating Section 16, Article III of Republic Act (R.A.) No. 6425, as amended, otherwise known as The Dangerous Drugs Act of 1972.
That on or about the 27th day of August, [sic] 1996, in the City of Makati, Philippines and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the above-named accused, without being authorized by law, did then and there willfully, unlawfully and feloniously have in his possession, custody and control 27.7458 grams of Methamphetamine Hydrochloride (Shabu), a regulated drug.
During arraignment, petitioner pleaded not guilty. Trial on the merits ensued.
At around 3:00 p.m., the team proceeded to the Cityland Condominium in South Superhighway, Makati. Upon arrival, they went directly to the Security Office of said building to seek assistance in serving the warrant. Security Officer Celedonio Punsaran (Punsaran) accompanied the group and they proceeded to Unit 615.
Meanwhile, the group also went to Unit 418 of the same building to serve the warrant and search the place. The police operatives did not find any occupant in the room.
Petitioner was then brought to the PARAC office for investigation. The pieces of evidence gathered by the police operatives were brought to the NBI for examination. That same day, NBI Forensic Chemist Loreto F. Bravo issued a certification stating that upon examination, the specimen submitted yielded positive for methamphetamine hydrochloride.13 The following day, the Arrest Report and Joint Affidavit of Apprehension were executed by the police operatives leading to the arrest and charging of petitioner for violation of Section 16, Article III of R.A. No. 6425.
Petitioner now seeks the reversal of said judgment. His conviction or acquittal rests on the validity of the warrantless arrest. The prosecution proffers that petitioner was caught in flagrante delicto in possession of the subject shabu justifying his warrantless arrest. Another crucial issue arises, that of the validity of the enforcement of the search warrant as basis for the presence of the police operatives in the Cityland Condominium unit. Therefore, these matters may be summarized into two issues for our resolution: whether the search warrant was properly enforced and whether petitioner was validly arrested without warrant.
It appearing to the satisfaction of the undersigned under examining under oath PNP SPO4 ISAGANI J. ILAS and his witness, that there are [sic] reasonable ground to believe that VIOLATION OF R.A. [No.] 6425 has been committed or is about to be committed and there are good and sufficient reasons to believe that still undetermined Quantity of Met[h]amphetamine Hydrochloride (Shabu) has [sic] in his possession and control.
You are commanded to make an immediate search anytime of the day or night of the premises abovementioned and forthwith seize and take possession of the abovementioned MET[H]AMPHETAMINE HYDROCHLORIDE (SHABU) subject of the offense and bring to this Court said drugs and persons to be dealt with as the law may direct. You are further directed to submit return within ten (10) days from today.
GIVEN UNDER MY HAND AND SEAL OF THIS COURT, this 26[th] day of August 1996 in Manila, Philippines.
Petitioner assails the improper enforcement of the search warrant in that despite the knowledge that petitioner was not the subject of such warrant, the police operatives proceeded anyway with the search and his resulting arrest. According to him, the Court of Appeals erred in declaring that where a search warrant is issued for the search of specifically described premises and not of a person, the omission of the name of the owner or occupant of such property in the warrant does not invalidate the same. Petitioner contends that this doctrine applies only if the search warrant does not indicate with all certainty the owner or occupant of the premises sought to be searched; on the contrary, the subject search warrant indicated with absolute clarity that the person subject thereof is Kim.
SEC. 4. Requisites for issuing search warrant. - A search warrant shall not issue except upon probable cause in connection with one specific offense to be determined personally by the judge after examination under oath or affirmation of the complainant and the witnesses he may produce, and particularly describing the place to be searched and the things to be seized which may be anywhere in the Philippines.
Nowhere in said rule or any other provision in the Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure is it required that the search warrant must name the person who occupies the described premises. In Uy v. Bureau of Internal Revenue,24 the Court has definitively ruled that where the search warrant is issued for the search of specifically described premises only and not for the search of a person, the failure to name the owner or occupant of such property in the affidavit and search warrant does not invalidate the warrant; and where the name of the owner of the premises sought to be searched is incorrectly inserted in the search warrant, it is not a fatal defect if the legal description of the premises to be searched is otherwise correct so that no discretion is left to the officer making the search as to the place to be searched.
A cursory reading of the search warrant reveals that the police officers were ordered to make an immediate search of the premises mentioned and to seize and take possession of shabu. Furthermore, they were directed to bring "persons to be dealt with as the law may direct." While petitioner may not be the person subject of the search, the fact that he was caught in flagrante delicto necessitated his valid warrantless arrest. Therefore, the fact that petitioner's name was not indicated in the search warrant is immaterial.
Turning to the second issue, petitioner insists that his apprehension cannot be considered in flagrante delicto because he was not in possession of the forbidden drug.
In support of the appellate court's ruling, the Solicitor General maintained that petitioner was in constructive possession of the subject shabu by citing several circumstances showing petitioner's control and dominion over the same. First, the shabu was found on top of a table in Unit 615 of Cityland Condominium when and where only petitioner was present inside the premises. Second, petitioner introduced himself as the owner of the condominium. Third, petitioner admitted that he was at the subject premises allegedly to collect rentals from the lessee. Fourth, petitioner was found naked from the waist up by the police operatives upon entering Unit 615. The Solicitor General stresses that petitioner's actuation of being naked from the waist up while opening the door to greet visitors is natural only to someone who owns the premises.30 Fifth, Unit 615 is a studio unit with a divider and a sala. There was no room with a door to be closed and locked which can prevent petitioner from having free access to the shabu found on the table.
This Court is convinced that petitioner's control and dominion over the shabu found on top of the table were sufficiently established by his questionable presence in Unit 615. Petitioner's explanation that he went to Lee's unit to collect rentals and was left by the maid to fend for himself while the latter went out to buy refreshments is highly suspicious. The maid never came back. The maid's testimony would have corroborated that of petitioner's.
A: At the second week of the month.
A: June and July[,] your Honor.
A: The deposit and the monthly rental.
A: He just paid for the month of May.
A: He paid me just one month.
Equally doubtful is the existence of the lease contract allegedly executed between petitioner and Lee which purportedly validates the presence of the former in Unit 615, which was to collect rentals from the latter. As the Solicitor General correctly observed, the lease agreement is undated and unnotarized.33 During cross-examination, the building administrator who presented a copy of the lease agreement could not even remember when the contract was executed.34 Petitioner also testified that the rentals are payable at the second week of each month.35 His statement is inconsistent with his avowed effort to collect payment in the last week of the month, particularly on 27 August 1996.
We further find the Solicitor General's conclusion that petitioner was privy to the existence of the shabu on top of the table credible because the unit was a small room with a piece of plywood dividing the sala and the bedroom. With petitioner seemingly comfortable in moving about the unit, the shabu and other paraphernalia could not have escaped his vision.
A: During [sic] when we conducted the search of the Cityland Condominium[,] South Superhighway[,] Makati City.
Make of record that the witness stepped down on the witness stand and tapped the shoulder of a person seated on the gallery who when asked of his name answered his name as Andy Quelman.
A: 3:00 o'clock in the afternoon.
A: At room 615 Cityland Condominium[,] South Superhighway[,] Makati City.
Q: By what authority did you conduct your search at room or [U]nit 615 Cityland Condominium[,] South Superhighway[,] Makati City.
A: We are armed with [a] search warrant.
A: The RTC Judge Hon. Bayhon, City of Manila.
A: We knocked at the door of [R]oom 615.
A: Somebody opened the door.
A: We presented our search warrant.
A: He is half[-]naked wearing pants.
A: We proceeded to the room to conduct the search.
A: He was sitting at the table inside the room.
A: First we proceeded to his room and I saw Mr. Quelman sitting at his table. Later on we found at his table all the paraphernalia.
A: We found 3 transparent plastic containing white crystalline substance.
The foregoing testimony was substantially corroborated by SPO4 Isagani Ilas and SPO1 Teodoro Sinag who were both part of the arresting team. These witnesses positively identified petitioner as the occupant of Unit 615 at the time the search was conducted and that he was caught in flagrante delicto when the shabu was found in his constructive possession.
The trial court placed great weight on the testimonies of these police officers and accorded them the presumption of regularity in the performance of their functions.37 The prosecution of drug cases largely depends on the credibility of the police officers. The factual findings of the trial court especially those which revolve on matters of credibility of witnesses deserve to be respected when no glaring errors bordering on a gross misapprehension of the facts or no speculative, arbitrary, and unsupported conclusions can be gleaned from such findings. The evaluation of the credibility of witnesses and their testimonies is best undertaken by the trial court because of its unique opportunity to observe the witnesses' deportment, demeanor, conduct, and attitude under grilling examination.38 In this case, the RTC was upheld by the Court of Appeals. Petitioner has not convinced this Court of the existence of any of the recognized exceptions39 to the conclusiveness of the findings of fact of the trial and appellate courts.
Having caught petitioner in flagrante delicto, the police operatives are obligated to apprehend him even without a warrant of arrest.
with the possession of 27.7458 grams of shabu, the imposable penalty is prision correccional.43 Applying the Indeterminate Sentence Law, the petitioner is sentenced to suffer an indeterminate penalty ranging from 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.
WHEREFORE, the instant petition is DENIED and the assailed Court of Appeals Decision in CA-G.R. CR No. 22001 is AFFIRMED with MODIFICATION in that petitioner ANDY QUELNAN y QUINO is sentenced to suffer an indeterminate penalty of imprisonment ranging from 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.
1 Penned by Associate Justice Edgardo P. Cruz, and concurred in by Associate Justices Godardo A. Jacinto and Jose C. Mendoza.
2 Penned by Judge Sixto Marella, Jr.
3 Also identified in the records as Andy Quelman y Quinoy.
5 The following witnesses testified for the prosecution: Inspector Carlos Acosta, SPO4 Isagani Ilas, SPO2 Teodoro L. Sinag, and NBI Forensic Chemist Loreto Bravo.
6 TSN, 13 January 1997, p. 11.
8 TSN, 9 December 1996, pp. 15-17.
9 TSN, 13 January 1997, p. 14.
12 TSN, 9 December 1996, pp. 21-23.
14 TSN, 21 July 1997, p. 2.
17 TSN, 14 August 1997, p. 10.
18 TSN, 6 October 1997, pp. 3-6.
19 CA rollo, pp. 27-28.
22 While the search warrant indicates Bernard Lim as respondent, it appears that there is a typographical error in that Lim should have been spelled as "Kim."
24 397 Phil. 892, 908-909 (2000).
25 Abuan v. People, G.R. No. 168773, 27 October 2006, 505 SCRA 799; People v. Torres, G.R. No. 170837, 12 September 2006, 501 SCRA 591, 610.
26 People v. Tira, G.R. No. 139615, 28 May 2004, 430 SCRA 134, 152, citing People v. Ramos, 186 SCRA 184 (1990).
27 CA rollo, p. 26.
31 TSN, 14 August 1997, p. 10.
32 TSN, 21 July 1997, pp. 17-18.
34 TSN, 14 August 1997, p. 15.
35 TSN, 21 July 1997, p. 18.
36 TSN, 9 December 1996, pp. 6-28.
37 CA rollo, p. 26.
38 People v. Miguel, G.R. No. 173795, 4 April 2007.
10) when the findings of fact of the Court of Appeals are premised on the absence of evidence but such findings are contradicted by the evidence on record." (Fuentes v. Court of Appeals, 335 Phil. 1163, 1168 (1997); Geronimo v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 105540, 5 July 1993, 224 SCRA 494, 498-499; Angelo v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 83392, 26 June 1992, 210 SCRA 402.
40 TSN, 9 December 1996, p. 16.
41 TSN, 21 July 1997, p. 6.
42 TSN, 13 January 1997, pp. 15-17.

References: v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v.