Del Castillo V People.docx

Del Castillo v People This case talks about a search. There was a search warrant because there was a report that people here were doing drugs so the search warrants specified the place where the search would be conducted. And the police went there aided by brgy. Tanods when they went to the place one of the accused here saw the policemen so he run towards a hut. The police inspectors here searched the place using the search warrant but they were not able to find any contraband. But nakita man nila ang one of the accused so they chased him and was found in a small hut which was according to them belonged to this accused and nakita nila ang sachet sa shabu. So they used this pieces of shabu to charge this accused with illegal possession of illegal drugs. It is claimed here that the sachet of shabu is already admissible as this was a product of a legal search. But the court said that they are excluded as evidence. Why? Where was the search conducted? The search warrant only specified this particular place this house. So when they made the search on the hut, it is not part of the extent of the search warrant and therefore there was a warrantless search conducted on the hut. Did it fall under any of the exceptions to the general rule? NO Wala man didto na arrest si accused. None of the exceptions happened when the search in the hut happened. So whatever was taken there should be inadmissible as evidence because it is a product of an unlawful search not being done with a search warrant and not falling under any of the exceptions in the general rule. Insofar as to the presumption of innocence this case was about his possession of shabu What are the elements? (1)He is found in possession of a regulated drug (2)He is not authorized by law to posses the same and; (3) He acknowledged that the drug is a regulated drug. So it is incumbent upon the prosecution to show that the property that the contraband was under this possession and control. The evidence presented by the prosecution was a presumption that this hut belonged to the accused because naa daw didto mga items na belonged to his profession as an electrician. That was the proof the state, therefore kay iyaha manang hut naa syay constructive possession. ‘ The court said that this was not enough, the prosecution must prove that the accused have knowledge of the presence and existence of the drugs in the place of his control and dominion and the character of the drugs. In this case they failed to prove that the nipa hut was under his control and dominion therefore it casts a reasonable doubt as to his guilt. Take note that in considering a criminal case it is critical to discard laws in a lone perspective to the status of the accused and that is in all criminal proceedings he is presumed to be innocent of the charged unless the contrary is proved beyond reasonable doubt. And that presumption was not overcome in this case.