100%(2)2 out of 2 people found this document helpful
This preview shows page 24 - 25 out of 149 pages.
and character of the drugs in the place where he exercises dominion and control is an internal act, the same may be presumed from the fact that the dangerous drug is in the house or place over which the accused has control or dominion, or within such premises in the absence of any satisfactory explanation. In this case, the prohibited and regulated drugs were found under the bed in the inner room of the house of the appellants where they also resided. The appellants had actual and exclusive possession and control and dominion over the house, including the room where the drugs were found by the policemen. The appellant Connie Tira cannot escape criminal liability for the crime charged simply and merely on her barefaced testimony that she was a plain housewife, had no involvement in the criminal actuations of her husband, and had no knowledge of the existence of the drugs in the inner room of the house. She had full access to the room, including the space under the bed. She failed to adduce any credible evidence that she was prohibited by her husband, the appellant Amadeo Tira, from entering the room, cleaning it, or even sleeping on the bed. 33.People vs. EdelmaLagata, GR 135323, 404 SCRA 671, 25 June 2003 (Animus possidendi) Facts:Edelma Lagata was accused of having in her possession, custody and control Methamphetamine Hydrochloride or “shabu” without authority of law. He was then found by the trial court guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the offense of Violation of Section 16 Article III in relation to Section 20 Republic Act 6425, as amended by Republic Act 7659. The record shows that on December 10, 1996, while appellant was tending her mother’s store, a short and dark complexioned man wearing jeans and a pair of slippers approached and asked her to deliver a package wrapped in newspaper and placed in plastic bag to a certain Chinggay, a boarder in her mother’s house.Fernando Hernandez, one of the defense witnesses, was at the store buying softdrinks. Appellant did not examine the contents of the package and the man hurriedly left the store. She entered the living room of the house to give the package to Chinggay, who was in one of the rooms of the house, when she saw two men sitting on the sofa. The men approached her and introduced themselves as agents of the National Bureau of Investigation. The men took the package from her and opened it. To her surprise, it contained shabu. The NBI agents immediately arrested her. Appellant does not deny the fact that at the time of her arrest she was in possession of the package which turned out to contain shabu. However, she denied knowledge of the contents of the package handed to her by the unidentified man. Issue:Whether appellant is guilty of the crime charged against her.