This case has been cited 1 times or more.
|
2015-10-14 |
PEREZ, J. |
||||
| "[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."[12] Accused-appellant is not authorized by law to possess the shabu. Mere possession of a regulated drug per se constitutes prima facie evidence of knowledge or animus possidendi sufficient to convict an accused absent a satisfactory explanation of such possession - the onus probandi is shifted to the accused, to explain the absence of knowledge or animus possidendi.[13] Accused-appellant's bare denials will not suffice to overcome the presumption of knowledge. | |||||