In the prosecution for violation of the Dangerous Drugs Act (RA 6425 as amended, Sec. 4) particularly the illegal possession, control and custody of dangerous drugs, there must be animus possidendi or intent to possess. Who shall prove this intent to possess, the prosecution or the defense? This is one of the issues in this case of Bartolome, 32 years of age.
In a sitio of a remote barangay up north, the PNP unit of CAFGU composed of civilian volunteers headed by Lt. Santos received information about the frequent trafficking of huge quantities of marijuana in their area.
So Lt. Santos ordered Maximo, CAFGU head, and his companions to patrol the area.
The following day about 5:00 p.m., Maximo and his companions chanced upon Bartolome, his uncle Cornelio, and two other companions walking along the pathways of a forested area in the mountain carrying sacks on their backs. At that time, when they had already been walking for three hours, Maximo halted Bartolome's group and told them they wanted to see what was in the sacks they were carrying. In reaction, Bartolome and his companions except Cornelio fled towards different directions.
Maximo fired two warning shots in the air while another CAFGU member fired at Bartolome hitting him on the left shoulder and left foot.
Bartolome and his uncle Cornelio were apprehended while their two companions were able to escape. One of the escapees, Artemio, was subsequently apprehended. After verifying and examining that the three sacks taken from them contained marijuana leaves. Bartolome, Cornelio and Artemio were charged with possession of dangerous drugs in violation of Section 4. Art. II R.A. 6425.
When convicted and sentenced to suffer the penalty of life imprisonment by the trial court, Bartolome appealed said decision. He theorized that he merely acceded to the request of his uncle Cornelio to carry the sack without knowing that it contained marijuana. So he cannot be guilty of illegal possession of prohibited drugs as there was no animus possidendi or intention to possess on his part. Was Bartolome correct?
No. Under the Rules of Evidence, it is disputably presumed that things which a person possesses or over which he exercises acts of ownership, are owned by him. The finding of a dangerous drug in the house or within the premises of the house of the accused is prima facie evidence of knowledge or animus possidendi and is enough to convict in the absence of satisfactory explanation. The constitutional presumption of innocence will not apply as long as there is some logical connection between the fact proved and the ultimate fact presumed, and the inference of one fact from proof of another shall not be so unreasonable as to be a purely arbitrary mandate. The burden of evidence is thus shifted on the possessor of the dangerous drugs to explain absence of animus possidendi.
In this case, it is not disputed that Bartolome was apprehended while carrying a sack containing marijuana. Consequently, to warrant his acquittal he must show that his act was innocent and done without intent to possess, i.e. without knowledge that what he possessed was a prohibited drug.
It is contrary to human experience that a man, 32 years of age, would readily agree to carry the load of his uncle, without even knowing the place where to deliver such load, and without asking, while negotiating a forested area, how far is their destination and how long it would take them to reach the place, especially so because when they were apprehended at around 5 p.m., -- they had already been walking for around three hours. The tale of Bartolome is too trite and hackneyed to be believed and does not suffice to overcome the prima facie evidence of his awareness of his possession of prohibited drugs. Worse still is the fact that Bartolome and his companions except Cornelio, fled towards different directions after the police authorities announced their presence. If Bartolome had nothing to do with the transporting of such prohibited drug, or if he really had no knowledge that the sack he carried contained marijuana, there would be no cause for him to flee. Obviously what Bartolome did removed any shred of doubt over his guilt; exemplifying the biblical adage: "The wicked flee when no man pursueth; but the righteous are as bold as a lion." (People of the Philippines vs. Baludda y Suoy G.R. No. 114198 Sept. 9, 1999).
Atty. Sison's e-mail address is: sison@ipaglabanmo.org.