People vs. Quijano

Possession of dangerous drugs constitutes prima facie evidence of knowledge or animus possidendi sufficient to convict an accused in the absence of a satisfactory explanation, and the burden shifts to the accused to prove the absence of such knowledge.

Allan Quijano y Sanding was a detainee at the Manila City Jail. Marivic Tulipat was a regular visitor at the city jail. JO2 Arthur Briones was a jail officer assigned to the Bureau of Jail Management and Penology, Manila, tasked with maintaining security at the facility. The dispute centers on an incident inside the jail where Tulipat handed a bag to Quijano, which was intercepted by Briones and found to contain methamphetamine hydrochloride.

On April 28, 2016, around 1:20 in the afternoon, JO2 Arthur Briones was at the window section of the Manila City Jail when he noticed Marivic Tulipat, a regular visitor, receiving a light violet bag from someone inside the city jail bakery. Briones became suspicious and called her attention. Tulipat appeared hesitant, prompting Briones to call her several times. Before approaching him, Tulipat handed the bag to Allan Quijano y Sanding, a detainee at the facility. Briones then summoned Quijano, who also hesitated and had to be called multiple times before approaching. When asked about the bag's contents, Quijano turned to Tulipat and attempted to return it, but she refused. Briones grabbed the bag and opened it, finding a blue bag containing a transparent bag with a white crystalline substance. He immediately arrested both Tulipat and Quijano, apprising them of their constitutional rights.

The seized items were marked, inventoried, and photographed at the Manila City Jail 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 light violet bag was marked "ACD/4/28/16," the blue sando bag "ACB/1/4-28-16," and the self-sealing transparent bag "ACB-2/4-28-16." Briones brought the items and a referral letter signed by City Jail Warden Superintendent Fermin RP Enriquez to the PDEA at 8:20 in the evening. Forensic Chemist Sweedy Kay L. Perez received the items and, per Chemistry Report No. PDEA-DD016-092, certified that the seized item with a net weight of 735.8 grams yielded positive results for methamphetamine hydrochloride.

Quijano testified that while waiting for his wife to visit him, a commotion occurred and Tulipat requested him to hold the light violet bag. He claimed he did not know the contents, as Tulipat merely asked him to hold it. During the inquest proceedings, Tulipat reiterated she owned the bag. The defense offered no documentary evidence. The trial court convicted Quijano, giving credence to Briones' testimony and rejecting Quijano's denial. The Court of Appeals affirmed the conviction with modification, deleting the subsidiary imprisonment.

• Lack of Animus Possidendi: Appellant argued that the third element of illegal possession of dangerous drugs was absent because he merely received the bag from Tulipat without actual knowledge of its contents, noting it only took thirty seconds from the time JO2 Briones called Tulipat to the time she handed the bag to him.
• Broken Chain of Custody: Appellant maintained that the prosecution failed to establish an unbroken chain of custody due to an unexplained variance in the weight of the seized item, claiming the Chemistry Report did not specify whether the stated weight was gross or net.

• Presence of Animus Possidendi: The OSG countered that appellant's behavior during the incident belied his lack of knowledge, as he was aware Tulipat was being summoned and a commotion was ongoing, yet he readily accepted the bag and hesitated to surrender it to JO2 Briones.
• Unbroken Chain of Custody: The OSG argued that the chain of custody and integrity of the seized item were clearly established, and the variance in weight was fully explained by the use of an unstable weighing scale during the ocular inspection compared to the unit used at the laboratory.

• Animus Possidendi: Whether the Court of Appeals erred in affirming the conviction despite the appellant's alleged lack of animus possidendi.
• Chain of Custody: Whether the prosecution failed to establish an unbroken chain of custody due to the variance in the weight of the seized drugs.

• Animus Possidendi: No. The prosecution sufficiently established animus possidendi, as possession of dangerous drugs constitutes prima facie evidence of knowledge, shifting the burden to the accused to provide a satisfactory explanation, which appellant failed to do.
• Chain of Custody: No. The chain of custody remained unbroken, and the slight discrepancy in the weight of the seized item was satisfactorily explained by the use of different weighing scales and the inclusion of the container's weight.

• Animus Possidendi: Animus possidendi is a state of mind determined on a case-to-case basis by considering the prior and contemporaneous acts of the accused and the surrounding circumstances. Possession of dangerous drugs constitutes prima facie evidence of knowledge or animus possidendi, shifting the burden to the accused to explain its absence. Appellant's actuations were unnatural and contrary to common experience: he readily accepted the bag from Tulipat during a commotion, hesitated when summoned by Briones, attempted to return the bag to Tulipat, and failed to immediately surrender it or disclaim knowledge of its contents. These circumstances negated his pretense of lack of animus possidendi.
• Chain of Custody: The four links in the chain of custody were properly established: (1) seizure and marking of the items in the presence of the required witnesses; (2) preparation of the referral letter to the PDEA Laboratory; (3) turnover to the forensic chemist who examined the items; and (4) submission to the court. The slight discrepancy in weight was explained by Forensic Chemist Perez, who clarified that the gross weight during ocular inspection included the container, while the Chemistry Report stated the net weight. The unstable weighing scale used during the ocular inspection also accounted for the variance, and the defense admitted during pre-trial that the specimen delivered to the crime laboratory was the same one brought to the RTC.

• Animus Possidendi in Drug Cases — Possession of dangerous drugs constitutes prima facie evidence of knowledge or animus possidendi sufficient to convict in the absence of a satisfactory explanation. The burden of evidence shifts to the accused to explain the absence of knowledge or animus possidendi. It is determined on a case-to-case basis, taking into consideration the prior and contemporaneous acts of the accused and the surrounding circumstances.
• Chain of Custody Rule — To establish the identity of the dangerous drug with moral certainty, the prosecution must account for each link in the chain of custody from the moment the drugs are seized up to their presentation in court. The links are: (1) seizure and marking by the apprehending officer; (2) turnover to the investigating officer; (3) turnover to the forensic chemist for examination; and (4) turnover and submission to the court. Non-compliance with the requirements under justifiable grounds, as long as the integrity and evidentiary value of the seized items are preserved, does not render the seizure void.

• "Possession of dangerous drugs constitutes prima facie evidence of knowledge or animus possidendi sufficient to convict an accused in the absence of a satisfactory explanation. Consequently, the burden of evidence is shifted to the accused to explain the absence of knowledge or animus possidendi." — This passage articulates the ratio decidendi regarding the presumption of animus possidendi and the shifting burden of evidence in illegal possession of dangerous drugs cases.
• "While the testimony about a perfect chain is not always the standard because it is almost always impossible to obtain, an unbroken chain of custody becomes indispensable and essential when the item of real evidence is not distinctive and is not readily identifiable, or when its condition at the time of testing or trial is critical, or when a witness has failed to observe its uniqueness." — This passage defines the standard for applying the chain of custody rule, emphasizing the necessity of an unbroken chain when evidence is susceptible to alteration or tampering.

• People vs. Alfonso, 264 Phil. 961 (1990) — Cited to illustrate that it is improbable for an accused not to have knowledge of the contents of a package they possessed, especially when the circumstances of the errand should have raised doubts about the mysterious nature of the transaction.
• People vs. Pambid, 655 Phil. 719 (2011) — Followed to uphold the conviction based on the defense's failure to rebut the prima facie evidence of animus possidendi when caught in actual possession of prohibited drugs without authority.
• People vs. Havana, 776 Phil. 462 (2016) — Cited to expound on the significance of the chain of custody rule as a method of authenticating evidence.
• People vs. Amaro, 786 Phil. 139 (2016) — Followed for the enumeration of the four links that should be established in the chain of custody of seized items.
• People vs. Aneslag et al., 699 Phil. 146 (2012) — Applied to show that a variance in the weight of seized drugs does not automatically warrant acquittal if the discrepancy is adequately explained by surrounding circumstances.

• Section 11, Article II, Republic Act No. 9165 (Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002) — Defines and penalizes the illegal possession of dangerous drugs. The appellant was charged and convicted under this provision, resulting in life imprisonment and a fine.
• Section 21, Article II, Republic Act No. 9165, as amended by Republic Act No. 10640 — Prescribes the procedure for the custody and disposition of confiscated, seized, and/or surrendered dangerous drugs, including the conduct of physical inventory and photography in the presence of required witnesses. The Court found that the apprehending team substantially complied with these requirements.

Peralta, C. J., Caguioa, J. Reyes, Jr., and Lopez, JJ., concurred.