In Xiuquin Shi v. People, the Supreme Court affirmed the conviction of Xiuquin Shi for illegal possession of dangerous drugs, clarifying the concept of constructive possession. The Court emphasized that even without direct physical control, an individual can be deemed in possession if they have dominion and control over the substance or the location where it is found. This ruling highlights the responsibility of individuals present during illegal activities, reinforcing that mere presence is not enough to escape liability if circumstances suggest knowledge and control over the illicit items.

Riding Shotgun or Accomplice? Unpacking Constructive Possession in a Parañaque Drug Bust

The case revolves around the arrest of Sunxiao Xu, Wenxian Hong, and Xiuquin Shi following a buy-bust operation in Parañaque City. The accused were charged with violations of Sections 5 and 11 of Republic Act No. 9165, the Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002. According to the prosecution, SPO3 Elmer Corbe acted as a poseur-buyer and purchased 496.73 grams of shabu from Xu and Hong. Simultaneously, police officers discovered an additional 7006.68 grams of shabu inside a black bag located in the vehicle where all three individuals were present.

During the trial, the prosecution presented testimonies from the arresting officers, while the defense maintained that the accused were framed. The Regional Trial Court (RTC) convicted Xu and Hong for both illegal sale and possession, while Shi was convicted only for illegal possession. The Court of Appeals (CA) affirmed the RTC’s decision, leading Shi and Xu to appeal to the Supreme Court.

At the heart of the legal matter is the concept of constructive possession, particularly as it applies to Xiuquin Shi. The Supreme Court needed to determine whether Shi, who was present in the vehicle but not in direct physical possession of the drugs, could be held liable for illegal possession. The Court clarified that possession includes not only actual possession but also constructive possession, which exists when the drug is under the dominion and control of the accused.

The Court referred to Section 5, Rule 113 of the Rules of Criminal Procedure, to justify the search made by the arresting officers:

Sec. 5. Arrest without warrant; when lawful. — A peace officer or a private person may, without a warrant, arrest a person:

(a) When, in his presence, the person to be arrested has committed, is actually committing, or is attempting to commit an offense;

The Supreme Court emphasized that because Shi was in constructive possession of the shabu, her mere possession constitutes prima facie evidence of knowledge or animus possidendi, sufficient to convict her absent a satisfactory explanation for such possession. Shi argued that she lacked knowledge that her husband’s car contained a substantial amount of shabu. She claimed she was merely a passenger, had no control over the vehicle, and was unaware of the drug transaction. However, the Court found these arguments unpersuasive.

Several factors influenced the Court’s decision. First, the vehicle was owned by Shi’s husband, and as a married couple, they were presumed to jointly exercise ownership and dominion over it. Second, Shi was present during the sale of the illegal drugs and, as such, she chose to remain silent during the transaction which the Court viewed as acquiescence to the illegal activity. Lastly, the Court noted that Shi attempted to make a phone call as soon as the police officers announced their authority, indicating a guilty mind.

Furthermore, the Court addressed the issue of chain of custody, which is crucial in drug-related cases to ensure the integrity and identity of the seized drugs. The chain of custody rule requires that the admission of an exhibit be preceded by evidence sufficient to support a finding that the matter in question is what the proponent claims it to be. The Court identified four critical links in the chain of custody:

1. The seizure and marking of the illegal drug recovered from the accused.
2. The turnover of the illegal drug seized to the investigating officer.
3. The turnover by the investigating officer to the forensic chemist for laboratory examination.
4. The turnover and submission of the marked illegal drug seized from the forensic chemist to the court.

The Court acknowledged that there were deviations from the standard procedure, such as the marking, inventory, and photographing of the seized items not being conducted immediately at the place of arrest. However, the Court accepted the apprehending officers’ explanation that they had to leave the area quickly to avoid jeopardizing a follow-up operation and that Camp Bagong Diwa was only two kilometers away. The Court also noted that while representatives from the Department of Justice (DOJ) and the media were not present during the inventory, Barangay Kagawads were present, and the police officers had made diligent efforts to secure the presence of a DOJ representative.

The Supreme Court emphasized that strict adherence to Section 21 of RA 9165 is especially crucial when the quantity of illegal drugs seized is minuscule, because it is highly susceptible to planting, tampering, or alteration of evidence. However, in this case, the volume of seized items, totaling 7503.41 grams of shabu, far outweighed the possibility of such misconduct.

Lastly, the Court dismissed Shi and Xu’s claim that they were victims of frame-up and extortion. The Court stated that such allegations are common defenses in drug cases and are viewed with disfavor. The Court found no clear and convincing evidence to support the claim that the police officers were motivated by an indecent objective or were not properly performing their duty. The Court also noted the implausibility of the officers obtaining such a large quantity of shabu to plant on the accused.

FAQs

What was the key issue in this case?	The key issue was whether Xiuquin Shi could be convicted of illegal possession of dangerous drugs based on the concept of constructive possession, despite not having direct physical control over the drugs.
What is constructive possession?	Constructive possession means that a person has dominion and control over the illegal drugs, or the location where they are found, even if they are not in the person’s immediate physical possession.
What factors did the court consider in determining constructive possession?	The court considered the ownership of the vehicle, Shi’s presence during the drug transaction, her silence and lack of inquiry during the transaction, and her attempt to make a phone call upon being apprehended.
What is the chain of custody rule in drug cases?	The chain of custody rule ensures that the drugs presented in court are the same ones seized from the accused, preserving their integrity and evidentiary value by documenting every transfer and handling of the drugs.
What deviations from the standard procedure occurred in this case?	The marking, inventory, and photographing of the seized items were not conducted immediately at the place of arrest, and representatives from the DOJ and media were not present during the inventory.
How did the court justify these deviations?	The court accepted the explanation that the officers had to leave the area quickly for a follow-up operation and that the police station was nearby, while the officers had tried but failed to secure a DOJ representative.
What was the significance of the large quantity of drugs seized?	The large quantity of drugs (7503.41 grams of shabu) reduced the likelihood of planting, tampering, or alteration of evidence, making strict adherence to chain of custody less critical.
How did the court address the claim of frame-up and extortion?	The court dismissed the claim due to a lack of clear and convincing evidence and the implausibility of the officers obtaining such a large quantity of drugs to plant on the accused.
What penalties were imposed on the accused?	Sunxiao Xu was sentenced to life imprisonment and a fine of P3,000,000.00 for both illegal sale and illegal possession of dangerous drugs. Xiuquin Shi was sentenced to life imprisonment and a fine of P3,000,000.00 for illegal possession of dangerous drugs.

The Supreme Court’s decision in Xiuquin Shi v. People underscores the importance of awareness and accountability in situations involving illegal drugs. It serves as a reminder that presence alone is not a shield against prosecution if other circumstances suggest knowledge, control, or participation in illicit activities. This ruling reinforces the need for law enforcement to diligently follow chain of custody procedures, while also recognizing that minor deviations may be permissible if the integrity of the evidence is preserved.

For inquiries regarding the application of this ruling to specific circumstances, please contact ASG Law through contact or via email at frontdesk@asglawpartners.com.

Disclaimer: This analysis is provided for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. For specific legal guidance tailored to your situation, please consult with a qualified attorney.
Source: XIUQUIN SHI, VS. PEOPLE, [G.R. No. 228519, March 16, 2022]