Case Summary (G.R. No. 247558)
Key Dates
April 28, 2016 – Alleged illegal possession and arrest
May 11, 2016 – Information filed in the Regional Trial Court (RTC), Manila
March 23, 2017 – RTC Decision of conviction
December 10, 2018 – Court of Appeals (CA) Decision affirming with modification
February 19, 2020 – Supreme Court final Decision
Applicable Law and Constitutional Basis
1987 Philippine Constitution (due process, search and seizure)
Republic Act No. 9165, Section 11, Article II (Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002), as amended by RA No. 10640
Charge and Elements to Prove
Charge: Illegal possession of dangerous drugs (methamphetamine hydrochloride) weighing 735.8 grams
Elements:
- Possession of an item identified as a dangerous drug
- Lack of legal authorization to possess
- Free and conscious possession (animus possidendi)
Proceedings at the Regional Trial Court
– At arraignment, the accused pleaded not guilty.
– Pre-trial stipulations covered jurisdiction, identity, and proposed testimony of JO2 Briones.
– Trial proper featured testimony from JO2 Briones and the accused’s direct testimony.
Prosecution’s Version of Events
– Officer Briones observed a commotion when Tulipat received a violet bag inside Manila City Jail.
– Tulipat hesitated and transferred the bag to Quijano upon summoning by Briones.
– Upon opening, Briones found a transparent bag containing white crystalline substance.
– Both Tulipat and Quijano were arrested; the bag was marked, inventoried, photographed, and sent to PDEA.
– Chemistry Report confirmed 735.8 grams of methamphetamine hydrochloride.
Documentary and Object Evidence
Exhibits included:
• Referral letter for laboratory examination and stamped receipt
• Seized plastic bags (three layers) containing white crystalline substance
• Chemistry Report (PDEA-DD016-092) and ancillary findings
• Chain of Custody documents
• Arrest and inventory reports, photographs, and witness affidavits
Defense’s Version
– Quijano testified he was merely holding the violet bag at Tulipat’s request and lacked knowledge of its contents.
– He claimed insufficient time or opportunity to inspect or question the bag’s contents.
– No documentary evidence was offered in support.
RTC Ruling
– The RTC credited the testimony of JO2 Briones over the accused’s denial.
– It found all elements of illegal possession established, including animus possidendi inferred from the accused’s conduct.
– Reliance was placed on the “stop-and-frisk” exception and routine security inspection within the jail.
– Quijano was sentenced to life imprisonment plus a ₱500,000 fine, with subsidiary imprisonment in case of insolvency.
Proceedings before the Court of Appeals
– Appellant challenged the absence of animus possidendi and argued a break in the chain of custody due to weight variances (735.8 g vs. 747.8 g).
– The Office of the Solicitor General (OSG) maintained that the accused’s behavior demonstrated knowledge and intent, and the variance arose from different scales and residue.
– The CA affirmed the conviction, deleted subsidiary imprisonment, and upheld life imprisonment with a ₱500,000 fine.
Issue on Appeal
Did the Court of Appeals err in affirming Quijano’s conviction for illegal possession of dangerous drugs?
Legal Standard on Illegal Possession of Dangerous Drugs
Under RA 9165:
a. Accused must possess a prohibited drug.
b. Possession must be unauthorized by law.
c. The accused must freely and consciously possess the drug (animus possidendi).
Possession may be actual or constructive, and knowledge of possession is presumed upon proof of possession of dangerous drugs.
Animus Possidendi
– Animus possidendi is a mental state inferred from attendant circumstances and conduct.
– Mere denial is insufficient to rebut the presumption; the burden shifts to the accused.
– Quijano’s hesitancy, acceptance of the bag amid a commotion, attempt to return it to Tulipat, and failure to immediately surrender it to Briones negated his claim of ignorance.
– The Supreme Court agreed that these acts were contrary to common experience and indicated consciousness of the contents.
Chain of Custody
Four links for an unbroken chain of custody:
- Seizure and marking of the drug
Case Syllabus (G.R. No. 247558)
Procedural History
- Originated from Information dated May 11, 2016 charging Allan Quijano y Sanding with violation of Section 11, Article II of RA 9165 (illegal possession of dangerous drugs).
- Trial Court (RTC Manila, Branch 28) rendered decision on March 23, 2017, finding appellant guilty and imposing life imprisonment plus a ₱500,000 fine (with subsidiary imprisonment).
- Appellant appealed to the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CR HC No. 09217, challenging animus possidendi and chain of custody; CA decision dated December 10, 2018 affirmed conviction with deletion of subsidiary imprisonment.
- Appellant filed a petition for review on certiorari before the Supreme Court, adopting his CA briefs; the Office of the Solicitor General likewise adopted its CA briefs.
Charge and Information
- Appellant accused of willfully, unlawfully, and knowingly possessing 735.8 grams of methamphetamine hydrochloride (“shabu”) in a self-sealing transparent plastic bag marked “ACB-2 TWO/4-28-16 with signature” on April 28, 2016 at Manila City Jail.
- Information invoked Section 11, Article II of RA 9165, penalizing unauthorized possession of dangerous drugs.
Arraignment and Pre-Trial
- Appellant pleaded not guilty upon arraignment.
- During pre-trial, parties stipulated on:
• RTC’s jurisdiction
• Appellant’s identity
• Proposed testimony of JO2 Joey J. Magallanes
Prosecution’s Case
- JO2 Arthur Briones testified: • Witnessed Marivic Tulipat receiving a light violet bag from inside jail bakery at around 1:20 PM. • Intercepted Tulipat after she handed the bag to appellant; appellant hesitated when called. • Discovered inside the violet bag a blue bag containing crystalline substance; promptly arrested both.
- Marking and inventory in Manila City Jail Investigation Unit before Tulipat, appellant, prosecutorial and jail-security witnesses.
- Referral to PDEA at 8:20 PM; seized items examined by Forensic Chemist Sweedy Kay L. Perez.
- Chemistry Report No. PDEA-DD016-092 confirmed 735.8 g net weight of methamphetamine hydrochloride.
Defense’s Case
- Appellant testified: • He was merely standing in jail courtyard awaiting a visit. • Tulipat asked him to hold the bag; he had no knowledge of contents. • Jo2 Briones told him the bag contained shabu; appellant claimed innocence and lack of animus