Sei sulla pagina 1di 1

Facts:

Sometime in 1996, the Police Assistance and Reaction Against Crime (PARAC) was tasked to implement a
search warrant to a certain Bernard Lim for probably possessing MA HCI (Shabu). The team was escorted
to the unit by the security officer (Punsaran), upon arrival at the place to be searched, a male person naked
from the waist up opened the door, which was later identified as Quelnan. The team presented the search
warrant and proceeded with the search. In the presence of Quelnan and Punsaran, they found on top of a
bedroom table 3 pieces of transparent plastic sachet containing white crystalline substance which was later
examined as Shabu. The next day, Quelnan was arrested for violation of Sec. 16 Art. III of RA 6425.

Quelnan in his defense averred that he is not residing in the said unit, but he is the registered owner of the
said unit, which he leased to Sung Kok Lee beginning May 1996. That he was there during he search for he
was collecting the rent. That he was forced to sign some documents at gunpoint, handcuffed and brought to
PARAC Office. Two days later, he was brought to Makati Prosecutor's Office for inquest and a case was
filed against him.

Issue:
Whether or not the search warrant was properly enforced provided that he was not the subject of the search
warrant.

Whether or not Quelnan was validly arrested.

Ruling:
Yes, there is no provision of law that requires the search warrant must name the person who occupies the
described premises, that where the search warrant is issued for the search of a specifically described
premises only and not for the search of a person, and failure to name to owner or occupant of such property
in the affidavit and search warrant does not invalidate the warrant.

Yes, Quelnan was arrested inflagrante delicto. In the prosecution of illegal possession of shabu the
following requisites must be present:

1. the accused is found in possession of a regulated drug;


2. the person is not authorized by law or by duly constituted authorities; and
3. the accused has knowledge that the said drug is a regulated drug.

That there must be intent to possess the drug, which includes actual possession or constructive possession.
Actual possession exist when the drug is immediate physical possession or control of the accused, while
constructive possession exist when he drug is under the dominion and control of the accused or when he
has the right to exercise dominion over the place where it is found.

Quelnan was found and caught in flagrante when the shabu was found in his constructive possession.