The elements in illegal possession of dangerous drug are: 

(1) the accused is in possession of an item or object which is identified to be a prohibited drug; 

(2) such possession is not authorized by law; and 

(3) the accused freely and consciously possessed the said drug.

On the third element, we have held that the possession must be with knowledge of the accused or that animus possidendi existed with the possession or control of said articles. Considering that as to this knowledge, a persons mental state of awareness of a fact is involved, we have ruled that:

Since courts cannot penetrate the mind of an accused and thereafter state its perceptions with certainty, resort to other evidence is necessary. Animus possidendi, as a state of mind, may be determined on a case-to-case basis by taking into consideration the prior or contemporaneous acts of the accused, as well as the surrounding circumstances. Its existence may and usually must be inferred from the attendant events in each particular case. (People vs. Carlos Dela Cruz, G.R. No. 182348, November 20, 2008) 


People vs. Carlos Dela Cruz
G.R. No. 182348, November 20, 2008

Facts: The prior or contemporaneous acts of accused-appellant show that: he was inside the nipa hut at the time the buy-bust operation against Boy Bicol was taking place; he was talking to Boy Bicol inside the nipa hut; he was seen holding a shotgun; when PO1 Calanoga, Jr. pointed his firearm at accused-appellant, the latter dropped his shotgun; and when apprehended, he was in a room which had the seized shabu, digital weighing scale, drug paraphernalia, ammunition, and magazines. Accused-appellant later admitted that he knew what the content of the seized plastic bag was.  The prosecution asserted that accused-appellant exercised dominion and control over the shabu on the table.

Held: Given the circumstances, we find that the prosecution failed to establish possession of the shabu, whether in its actual or constructive sense, on the part of accused-appellant.

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.

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.

Since accused-appellant was not in possession of the illegal drugs in Boy Bicols nipa hut, his subsequent arrest was also invalid.