G.R. No. 247558 , February 19, 2020
THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE, VS. ALLAN QUIJANO Y SANDING, ACCUSED-APPELLANT.

FACTS

On April 28, 2016, around 1:20 PM, JO2 Arthur Briones, a jail officer at the Manila City Jail, noticed regular visitor Marivic Tulipat receiving a light violet bag from someone inside the jail bakery. Suspicious, he called her attention. Tulipat appeared hesitant and, before approaching, handed the bag to accused-appellant Allan Quijano y Sanding, a detainee. Briones also summoned Quijano, who was likewise hesitant. When asked about the bag’s contents, Quijano tried to return it to Tulipat, who refused. Briones grabbed and opened the bag, finding a blue bag containing a transparent plastic bag with white crystalline substance. He arrested both. The seized items were marked, inventoried, and photographed at the jail’s Investigation Unit in the presence of Tulipat, Quijano, JO3 Jose Rodzon Antonio, Senior Assistant City Prosecutor Maria Josefina Concepcion, Kagawad Rodelito E. Jurilla, and Police Inspector Adelo A. Natividad. The item, marked “ACB-2/4-28-16,” was delivered to the PDEA. Forensic Chemist Sweedy Kay L. Perez’s examination confirmed the substance (net weight 735.8 grams) was methamphetamine hydrochloride or shabu. Quijano was charged with illegal possession of dangerous drugs under Section 11, Article II of R.A. No. 9165 . He pleaded not guilty, claiming Tulipat merely asked him to hold the bag without his knowledge of its contents. The Regional Trial Court convicted him, sentencing him to life imprisonment and a P500,000 fine. The Court of Appeals affirmed the conviction but deleted the subsidiary imprisonment.

ISSUE

Did the Court of Appeals err in affirming appellant’s conviction for illegal possession of dangerous drugs?

RULING

No, the Court of Appeals did not err. The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal and affirmed the CA Decision. The prosecution successfully established all elements of illegal possession of dangerous drugs: (1) Quijano was in possession of an item identified as a prohibited drug; (2) such possession was not authorized by law; and (3) he freely and consciously possessed the drug. The Court found that Quijano had the requisite animus possidendi (intent to possess). His actions—readily accepting the bag from Tulipat while knowing she was being summoned in a commotion, his reluctance to approach Briones, and his attempt to return the bag to Tulipat upon confrontation—demonstrated conscious possession, which includes constructive possession. The defense of lack of knowledge was untenable. The chain of custody was also preserved; the variance in the weight of the seized item (from 747.8 grams gross to 735.8 grams net) was adequately explained by the use of different weighing scales. The penalty of life imprisonment and a P500,000 fine, in accordance with R.A. No. 9165 as amended, was correctly imposed.