Mere possession of a prohibited drug constitutes prima facie evidence of knowledge or animus possidendi sufficient to convict an accused in the absence of any satisfactory explanation. 


Kinds of Possession:

1. Actual - exists when the drug is in the immediate possession or control of the accused.

2. Constructive - 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.


Cases where there was constructive possession: 

● In the prosecution of illegal possession of regulated or prohibited drugs, the following elements must be established: (1) the accused is in possession of an item or object, which is identified to be prohibited or regulated drug; (2) such possession is not authorized by law; and (3) the accused freely and consciously possessed the drug. As correctly ruled by the CA, these elements were duly established by the prosecution. Jurisprudence is consistent in that mere possession of a prohibited drug constitutes prima facie evidence of knowledge or animus possidendi sufficient to convict an accused in the absence of any satisfactory explanation.

The ruling of this Court in People v. Lagman is instructive. It held that illegal possession of regulated drugs is mala prohibita, and, as such, criminal intent is not an essential element. However, the prosecution must prove that the accused had the intent to possess (animus posidendi) the drugs. Possession, under the law, includes not only actual possession, but also constructive possession. Actual possession exists when the drug is in the immediate 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.

It must be emphasized that the finding of illicit drugs and paraphernalia in a house or building owned or occupied by a particular person raises the presumption of knowledge and possession thereof which, standing alone, is sufficient to convict. Here, accused-appellant failed to present any evidence to overcome such presumption. He merely insisted that he was framed and had no knowledge of where the prohibited drugs came from. In the absence of any contrary evidence, he is deemed to be in full control and dominion of the drugs found in his house. (People vs. Leo Dela Trinidad, G.R. No. 199898, September 3, 2014) 


● The fact that appellant was not in his residence when it was searched nor caught in flagrante delicto possessing the illicit drugs and paraphernalia does not dent the case of the prosecution. As a matter of law, when prohibited and regulated drugs are found in a house or other building belonging to and occupied by a particular person, the presumption arises that such person is in possession of such drugs in violation of law, and the fact of finding the same is sufficient to convict. Otherwise stated, the finding of the illicit drugs and paraphernalia in the house owned by the appellant raised the presumption of knowledge and, standing alone, was sufficient to convict.

In the instant case, appellant failed to present any evidence to rebut the existence of animus possidendi over the illicit drugs and paraphernalia found in his residence. His claim that he was not aware that such illegal items were in his house is insufficient. We have time and again ruled that mere denial cannot prevail over the positive testimony of a witness. Mere denial, just like alibi, is a self-serving negative evidence which cannot be accorded greater evidentiary weight than the declaration of credible witnesses who testify on affirmative matters. As between a categorical testimony that rings of truth on one hand, and a bare denial on the other, the former is generally held to prevail.Moreover, his defense of frame-up, as we said, is a common and standard line of defense which is invariably viewed with disfavor, it being capable of easy concoction and difficult to prove.[36] Considering that no clear and convincing evidence was presented to prove such allegation, the presumption of regularity in the performance of official duty, as well as the principle that findings of the trial court on the credibility of witnesses, especially when affirmed by the CA, are entitled to great respect and are accorded the highest consideration, must prevail over the appellants imputation of ill-motive on the part of the policemen who conducted the search. (People vs. Torres,  G.R. NO. 170837, September 12, 2006) 


● In People v. Torres, we held there was constructive possession of prohibited drugs even when the accused was not home when the prohibited drugs were found in the masters bedroom of his house.

In People v. Tira, we sustained the conviction of the accused husband and wife for illegal possession of dangerous drugs. Their residence was searched and their bed was found to be concealing illegal drugs underneath. We held that the wife cannot feign ignorance of the drugs existence as she had full access to the room, including the space under the bed.

In Abuan v. People, we affirmed the finding that the accused was in constructive possession of prohibited drugs which had been found in the drawer located in her bedroom.

In all these cases, the accused was held to be in constructive possession of illegal drugs since they were shown to enjoy dominion and control over the premises where these drugs were found. (People vs. Carlos Dela Cruz, G.R. No. 182348, November 20, 2008) 


● Facts: Emily was standing in front of her house. PO1 Area, who was the poseur-buyer, called her and when she came near him, he told her that he would buy shabu. PO1 Area then handed to Emily P250.00, consisting of two pieces of P100.00 bill and one piece of P50.00 bill. After receiving the money from PO1 Area, Emily immediately went to her house and got a coin purse. When she returned at the scene of the operation, Emily gave PO1 Area one sachet of shabu, which she got from the coin purse. Subsequently, Roger appeared and handed to Emily 12 plastic sachets of shabu which Emily placed inside the coin purse. At this point, PO1 Area identified himself as a police officer while giving the signal to his team that the buy-bust turned positive. He arrested Emily while Roger ran away and went inside their house. Is Roger liable for illegal possession of shabu?

Held: Yes. In United States v. Juan, we have clarified the meaning of the words having possession of. In that case, we recognized the fact that a person remains to be in possession of the prohibited drugs although he may not have or may have lost physical possession of the same.

Admittedly, the 12 sachets of shabu were found in the possession of Emily. But PO1 Area saw Roger hand the same 12 sachets of shabu to Emily. While Roger had lost physical possession of the said 12 sachets of shabu, he had constructive possession of the same because they remain to be under his control and management. (People vs. Posada, G.R. No. 194445, March 12, 2012)


No constructive possession: 

● In the instant case, however, there is no question that accused-appellant was not the owner of the nipa hut that was subject of the buy-bust operation. He did not have dominion or control over the nipa hut. Neither was accused-appellant a tenant or occupant of the nipa hut, a fact not disputed by the prosecution. The target of the operation was Boy Bicol. Accused-appellant was merely a guest of Boy Bicol. But in spite of the lack of evidence pinning accused-appellant to illegal possession of drugs, the trial court declared the following:

It cannot be denied that when the accused was talking with Boy Bicol he knew that the shabu was on the table with other items that were confiscated by the police operatives. The court [surmises] that the accused and boy Bicol were members of a gang hiding in that nipa hut where they were caught red-handed with prohibited items and dangerous [drugs].

The trial court cannot assume, based on the prosecutions evidence, that accused-appellant was part of a gang dealing in illegal activities. Apart from his presence in Boy Bicols nipa hut, the prosecution was not able to show his participation in any drug-dealing. He was not even in possession of drugs in his person. He was merely found inside a room with shabu, not as the rooms owner or occupant but as a guest. While he allegedly pointed a firearm at the buy-bust team, the prosecution curiously failed to produce the firearm that accused-appellant supposedly used.

The prosecution in this case clearly failed to show all the elements of the crime absent a showing of either actual or constructive possession by the accused-appellant.  (People vs. Carlos Dela Cruz, G.R. No. 182348, November 20, 2008) 


● While it is not necessary that the property to be searched or seized should be owned by the person against whom the search warrant is issued, there must be sufficient showing that the property is under appellant’s control or possession. The CA, in its Decision, referred to the possession of regulated drugs by the petitioner as a constructive one. 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. The records are void of any evidence to show that petitioner owns the nipa hut in question nor was it established that he used the said structure as a shop. The RTC, as well as the CA, merely presumed that petitioner used the said structure due to the presence of electrical materials, the petitioner being an electrician by profession.

The prosecution must prove that the petitioner had knowledge of the existence and presence of the drugs in the place under his control and dominion and the character of the drugs. With the prosecution's failure to prove that the nipa hut was under petitioner's control and dominion, there casts a reasonable doubt as to his guilt. In considering a criminal case, it is critical to start with the law's own starting perspective on the status of the accused - in all criminal prosecutions, he is presumed innocent of the charge laid unless the contrary is proven beyond reasonable doubt. Proof beyond reasonable doubt, or that quantum of proof sufficient to produce a moral certainty that would convince and satisfy the conscience of those who act in judgment, is indispensable to overcome the constitutional presumption of innocence. (Del Castillo vs. People, G.R. No. 185128, January 30, 2012)