REYNALDO POSIQUIT @ “CHEW”, PETITIONER, VS. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, RESPONDENT.

Posiquit versus People of the Philippines

The Case

This is Reynaldo Posiquit, known by the alias Chew, against the People of the Philippines. He asks the Supreme Court to overturn his conviction for illegal possession of dangerous drugs under the Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002. The case matters for two reasons. First, it is a clean lesson in remedial law: a motion for extension filed one day late, and without proof of service, kills the appeal before the Court ever reaches the merits. Second, and more importantly for the bar, it declares in plain terms that the crime of conspiracy to commit possession of dangerous drugs does not exist. Conspiracy is not appreciated in the crime of possession under Section 11, Article II of the law.

Procedural History

The Regional Trial Court of Ligao City, after trial, rendered a Joint Judgment convicting Posiquit and his co-accused Jesus Saunar of violating Section 11, Article II of the Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act. Each was sentenced to an indeterminate prison term of thirteen years as minimum to fifteen years as maximum, and each was fined 300,000 pesos. The trial court treated Posiquit's flight as the deliberate act of a guilty person seeking to avoid arrest.

Posiquit and Saunar appealed to the Court of Appeals. They argued that the confiscation, inventory, and photographing of the seized items were not done in the presence of a representative from the media, the Department of Justice, and an elected public official, as Section 21 of the law requires, and that the chain of custody was not established. The Court of Appeals affirmed the conviction in full. It held that the presence of those persons is mandatory only when the persons from whom the items were taken, or their representatives, are absent, and that in any event the prosecution showed an unbroken chain of custody. Reconsideration was denied.

Posiquit then came to the Supreme Court by petition for review on certiorari under Rule 45. Saunar did not join him, so the Court limited its discussion to Posiquit's case.

Facts

On the strength of a search warrant issued by the Executive Judge of the Regional Trial Court of Ligao City, combined police and anti-drug units searched the house of Jesus Saunar in Barangay Kinale, Polangui, Albay, on September 18, 2002. Before the search team arrived, Posiquit, Saunar, Ricardo Morada, and Myla Dela Cruz were inside the house, apparently in the middle of a pot session.

When the search vehicles pulled up in front, the group scampered toward the back of the adjacent house. While fleeing, Posiquit threw his wallet away. The search team caught him and recovered the wallet, which held three small plastic sachets of white crystalline substance. Inside the house, after the warrant was shown to Saunar and his wife, the search yielded three more small sachets, one big plastic bag of white crystalline substance, and a stick of dried marijuana leaves. A receipt of the seized items was prepared and signed by the search team and by Saunar, and photographs were taken.

The next day, a police officer brought the items to the Regional Crime Laboratory in Legaspi City. The forensic chemist confirmed that the sachets contained a total of 3.548 grams of methamphetamine hydrochloride, or shabu, and that the stick was dried marijuana leaves weighing 0.2869 grams. Posiquit's defense was that he and the group were merely having a drinking spree, that armed men suddenly arrived and pointed guns at them, and that he ran only because he was surprised. He admitted owning the wallet but denied it contained shabu.

Issues

• Whether or not the petition for review on certiorari should be denied outright for procedural lapses, namely a motion for extension of time filed one day after the reglementary period expired and without proof of service on the adverse party.
• Whether or not the petition raises only questions of fact, which are not proper subjects of a petition for review under Rule 45.
• Whether or not the Court of Appeals erred in convicting the petitioner for violation of Section 11, Article II of the Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act in conspiracy with Saunar.
• Whether or not the elements of illegal possession of dangerous drugs and the chain of custody of the seized items were proven beyond reasonable doubt.

Applicable Provisions

Section 11, Article II of Republic Act Number 9165, the Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002, provides:

The penalty of imprisonment ranging from twelve years and one day to twenty years and a fine ranging from Three hundred thousand pesos to Four hundred thousand pesos shall be imposed upon any person who, unless authorized by law, shall possess any dangerous drug in the following quantities, regardless of the degree of purity thereof.

This is the crime charged and the source of the penalty imposed on the petitioner.

Section 21 of the same law, on custody and disposition of seized items, provides:

The apprehending team having initial custody and control of the drugs shall, immediately after seizure and confiscation, physically inventory and photograph the same in the presence of the accused or the person or persons from whom such items were confiscated and or his or her representative or counsel, a representative from the media and the Department of Justice, and any elected public official who shall be required to sign the copies of the inventory and be given a copy thereof.

The petitioner invoked this provision to attack the inventory and photographing of the seized items, and the Court of Appeals construed it as requiring those witnesses only in the absence of the accused or his representative.

Section 2, Rule 45 of the Rules of Court, on appeals by certiorari to the Supreme Court, provides:

The petition shall be filed within fifteen days from notice of the judgment or final order or resolution appealed from, or of the denial of the petitioner's motion for new trial or reconsideration filed in due time after notice of the judgment.

This is the period the petitioner missed by one day, which alone warranted denial of his petition.

Ruling

On the first issue, the Court denied the petition outright. The petitioner received the denial of his motion for reconsideration on May 5, 2010, giving him until May 20, 2010 to file his petition. He filed instead a motion for extension, sent through a private courier on May 20 but received by the Court only on May 21. The motion was therefore a day late. The Court held that a motion for extension must be filed before the expiration of the period sought to be extended, and that once the period lapses the court is powerless to entertain or grant it. The motion also lacked proof of service on the adverse party.

On the second issue, the Court held that even setting aside the procedural lapses, the petition would still fail. The arguments raised, namely whether the elements of illegal possession were established and whether the chain of custody was unbroken, are questions of fact. Findings of fact of the Court of Appeals are conclusive on the Supreme Court and will not be disturbed absent extraordinary circumstances, and no such circumstance was shown.

On the third issue, the Court found the argument utterly specious. Neither the trial court nor the Court of Appeals appreciated conspiracy against the petitioner. Both courts held that he and Saunar were separately found in possession of dangerous drugs, making each liable. The Court then laid down the rule: the crime of conspiracy to commit possession of dangerous drugs does not exist. Conspiracy is not appreciated in the crime of possession under Section 11, Article II. The allegation in the Information that the accused conspired and helped each other is immaterial, since the Information sufficiently alleged that they were caught in possession of dangerous drugs.

On the fourth issue, the Court upheld the findings of the lower courts that the elements of illegal possession and the chain of custody were established, and declined to review these factual matters.

Doctrine

Three rules a candidate should carry into the examination room. First, the crime of conspiracy to commit possession of dangerous drugs does not exist; conspiracy is not appreciated in the crime of possession under Section 11, Article II of the Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act, and an allegation of conspiracy in the Information is immaterial where each accused is separately shown to be in possession. Second, a motion for extension of time to file a pleading must be filed before the expiration of the period sought to be extended; a motion filed after the lapse of the period leaves the court without power to grant it, and the absence of proof of service is a further ground for denial. Third, findings of fact of the Court of Appeals, including the sufficiency of the evidence on the elements of the crime and the continuity of the chain of custody, are conclusive on the Supreme Court and are not proper subjects of a petition for review under Rule 45.

Disposition

The petition was denied, and the conviction of Reynaldo Posiquit for violation of Section 11, Article II of the Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act, with its penalty of imprisonment and fine, was affirmed.

Remember This

Memorize the line: there is no crime of conspiracy to commit possession of dangerous drugs, because conspiracy is not appreciated in possession under Section 11. Examiners use this case to test whether you will treat a conspiracy allegation in a drug possession Information as material, and to test the rule that a motion for extension filed after the period has lapsed can no longer be granted.