REYNALDO POSIQUIT @ “Chew”, Petitioner, vs. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Respondent.
FACTS
On September 18, 2002, a combined police and PDEA team, armed with a search warrant, conducted a search at the house of Jesus Saunar in Polangui, Albay. Before the team arrived, petitioner Reynaldo Posiquit, Saunar, Ricardo Morada, and Myla Dela Cruz were inside the house engaged in an activity resembling a pot session. Upon the arrival of the search vehicles, the group scampered towards the back of an adjacent house. While fleeing, petitioner threw away his wallet. Members of the search team caught him and recovered the wallet, which contained three small plastic sachets of white crystalline substance. The search of Saunar’s house yielded additional plastic sachets, a big plastic bag containing white crystalline substance, and a stick of dried marijuana leaves. A receipt of seized items was prepared and signed by the search team and Saunar, and pictures were taken. The seized items were brought to the crime laboratory the next day, where Forensic Chemist P/Insp. Josephine Clemen confirmed the plastic sachets contained a total of 3.548 grams of methamphetamine hydrochloride (shabu) and the stick was 0.2869 grams of dried marijuana leaves. Petitioner and Saunar were charged with violation of Section 11, Article II of R.A. 9165 (Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002) for illegal possession of dangerous drugs. Petitioner denied the charge, claiming he was merely drinking, ran out of surprise when armed men arrived, and that the wallet (which he admitted owning) did not contain shabu. The RTC convicted both accused. The CA affirmed the conviction, holding that the prosecution established the chain of custody and that the absence of media, DOJ, and elected official representatives during inventory was not fatal under the circumstances. Only petitioner filed the instant petition for review on certiorari.
ISSUE
1. Whether the petition should be denied on procedural grounds.
2. Whether the Court of Appeals erred in convicting petitioner for violation of Section 11, Article II of R.A. 9165 in conspiracy with Saunar.
3. Whether the elements of illegal possession of dangerous drugs were proven beyond reasonable doubt.
4. Whether the chain of custody of the seized items was clearly established.
RULING
The Supreme Court DENIED the petition.
1. Procedural Grounds: The petition warrants outright denial due to procedural lapses. Petitioner’s motion for extension of time to file the petition was filed one day late (on May 20, 2010, the last day of the reglementary period, but received by the Court on May 21, 2010). A motion for extension must be filed before the period expires; filing it late leaves no period to extend. Furthermore, the motion lacked proof of service to the adverse party.
2. On the Substantive Issues: Even disregarding the procedural defects, the petition lacks merit. The arguments raised by petitioner (regarding proof of elements and chain of custody) are questions of fact, which are not proper in a Rule 45 petition. Findings of fact of the Court of Appeals are conclusive and binding on the Supreme Court.
3. On Conspiracy: The petitioner’s claim that the CA convicted him based on conspiracy is erroneous. Both the RTC and CA held petitioner and Saunar separately liable for possession of dangerous drugs found in their respective possession (the wallet for petitioner, items in the house for Saunar). The Supreme Court clarified that conspiracy is not an element of, and is not appreciated in, the crime of illegal possession of dangerous drugs under Section 11 of R.A. 9165. The allegation of conspiracy in the Information is immaterial, as the Information sufficiently alleged that each accused was caught in possession of dangerous drugs.
Therefore, the assailed CA Decision and Resolution affirming petitioner’s conviction were upheld.
