The Supreme Court affirmed the conviction of Maribel Lagman and Zeng Wa Shui for violating the Dangerous Drugs Act, emphasizing the concept of constructive possession. The court ruled that even without direct physical control over illegal substances, an individual can be held liable if they have dominion and control over the location where the drugs are found. This case underscores that knowledge and control, even if shared, can establish guilt in drug-related offenses, a vital consideration for property owners and tenants alike.

Beyond the Locked Door: Can Ignorance Shield You from Drug Charges?

The case revolves around a raid conducted by the National Bureau of Investigation (NBI) on a piggery farm in Porac, Pampanga, and a residence in Angeles City. Acting on reports of clandestine shabu laboratory operations, the NBI teams executed search warrants, leading to the discovery of illegal substances and paraphernalia. Maribel Lagman, who shared the Angeles City residence with her common-law husband, Jose “Bobby” Yu, was implicated after regulated substances were found in padlocked rooms within the house. Zeng Wa Shui was apprehended at the piggery farm with a drum of liquid found to contain methamphetamine hydrochloride.

Maribel argued that she had no knowledge of the substances, claiming that Yu had stored them in the locked rooms and told her they were fertilizers and restaurant items. Zeng, on the other hand, contended that the evidence against him was illegally obtained and that the prosecution failed to prove he lacked authority to possess the drugs. The Regional Trial Court convicted both Maribel and Zeng, a decision upheld by the Court of Appeals, leading to this appeal before the Supreme Court.

The Supreme Court emphasized the elements necessary to prove illegal possession of regulated drugs: actual possession of a prohibited drug, lack of legal authorization for such possession, and the accused’s conscious possession of the drug. Central to this case is the concept of constructive possession, which applies when the drug is under the dominion and control of the accused, or when they have the right to exercise dominion and control over the place where it is found. The court stated:

[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 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.

In Maribel’s case, the Court found that as the tenant of the house, she had full access, control, and dominion over the rooms, thereby establishing constructive possession. Her claims of ignorance and reliance on her husband’s explanation were deemed insufficient to rebut the presumption of knowledge and possession arising from the presence of illicit drugs in her residence. Regarding Zeng, the Court ruled that the search of his vehicle fell under the “plain view” doctrine, making the seized evidence admissible. Since the drum containing methamphetamine was openly visible in his van, it was subject to lawful seizure, despite not being explicitly included in the search warrant.

The Court also addressed Zeng’s argument that the prosecution failed to prove he lacked a license to possess the drugs. It cited the principle that when a criminal charge is based on a negative allegation, the burden of proof shifts to the accused, particularly when the facts are more readily within their knowledge. Zeng could have easily disproved the allegation by presenting evidence of his authority to possess the drugs but failed to do so. Moreover, the Court clarified that the purity of the seized methamphetamine is not material to the crime of illegal possession; the mere possession of dangerous or regulated drugs without authorization is punishable under the Dangerous Drugs Act. While the death penalty initially imposed was modified to reclusion perpetua without eligibility for parole due to subsequent legislation, the core conviction stood.

FAQs

What is constructive possession?	Constructive possession means having control over an area where illegal items are found, even if you don’t physically hold them. It implies the power and intent to control those items.
What must the prosecution prove in drug possession cases?	The prosecution must demonstrate that the accused had actual or constructive possession of a prohibited drug, that such possession was not authorized by law, and that the accused freely and consciously possessed the drug.
Is knowledge of the presence of drugs necessary for conviction?	In cases of constructive possession, knowledge is essential. The prosecution must prove that the accused was aware of the presence of the illegal items and had the intent and ability to control them.
What is the “plain view” doctrine?	The “plain view” doctrine allows law enforcement officers to seize evidence without a warrant if the evidence is in plain sight, the officer is legally in a position to view it, and the incriminating nature of the evidence is immediately apparent.
Does the prosecution need to prove the purity of seized drugs?	No, the Supreme Court clarified that the purity of seized drugs is not material to the crime of illegal possession. The focus is on whether the accused possessed the drugs without legal authorization.
Who has the burden of proof regarding licenses for drug possession?	The burden shifts to the accused to prove they have a license or authority to possess the drugs. If the accused fails to provide evidence of authorization, the court may presume they lack such authorization.
How does a search warrant affect the legality of seized evidence?	Evidence obtained without a valid search warrant is generally inadmissible in court. However, exceptions exist, such as the “plain view” doctrine or cases where the search is incident to a lawful arrest.
Can someone be convicted if they share control of the location where drugs are found?	Yes, exclusive possession or control is not necessary for a conviction. An accused person cannot avoid conviction if their right to exercise control and dominion over the place where the contraband is located is shared with another.

This case emphasizes the importance of being aware of what is stored within one’s property, even in shared residences. Ignorance is not always a defense, and individuals can be held accountable for illegal substances found in areas under their control. It also reaffirms law enforcement’s ability to seize openly visible contraband during a lawful search, highlighting the limits of privacy expectations.

For inquiries regarding the application of this ruling to specific circumstances, please contact ASG Law through contact or via email at frontdesk@asglawpartners.com.

Disclaimer: This analysis is provided for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. For specific legal guidance tailored to your situation, please consult with a qualified attorney.
Source: PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, APPELLEE, VS. MARIBEL LAGMAN AND ZENG WA SHUI, APPELLANTS., G.R. No. 168695, December 08, 2008