People v. Posiquit
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: Acting on a Search Warrant, law enforcement officers searched the house of Jesus Saunar. Prior to the search, petitioner Reynaldo Posiquit, Saunar, Ricardo Morada, and Myla Dela Cruz were inside the house, allegedly engaged in a pot session. Upon the arrival of the search team, the group scattered. Petitioner Posiquit threw his wallet while attempting to escape, but it was recovered by the search team and found to contain three small plastic sachets with white crystalline substances. The search of Saunar's house yielded additional sachets of white crystalline substances and dried marijuana leaves. Laboratory tests confirmed the substances to be methamphetamine hydrochloride (shabu) and marijuana. Procedural History: Petitioner and Saunar were charged with violation of Section 11, Article II of Republic Act No. 9165 (R.A. 9165). The Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Ligao City found both guilty beyond reasonable doubt and sentenced them to imprisonment and a fine. The Court of Appeals (CA) affirmed the RTC's decision. The CA held that the prosecution adequately showed the integrity and identity of the seized items and that the presence of media, DOJ, or public official representatives during confiscation is mandatory only in the absence of the persons from whom the items were taken. The Petition: Petitioner Posiquit filed a petition for review on certiorari with the Supreme Court, assailing the CA's decision. He argued that the CA erred in convicting him for conspiracy, that the elements of illegal possession were not proven, and that the chain of custody was not established.
Issue(s)
Whether the petition for review on certiorari was filed within the reglementary period. Whether the Court of Appeals erred in convicting the petitioner for violation of Section 11, Article II of R.A. 9165, considering the arguments regarding questions of fact. Whether the elements of illegal possession of dangerous drugs were proven beyond reasonable doubt, and whether the chain of custody of the seized items was clearly established by the prosecution.
Ruling
The petition is denied. The Supreme Court found that the motion for extension of time to file the petition was filed a day late, warranting outright denial. Even disregarding procedural lapses, the petition would still be denied as it raised questions of fact not proper for a Rule 45 petition. The Court also clarified that conspiracy is not appreciated in the crime of possession of dangerous drugs under Section 11, Article II of R.A. 9165; rather, both petitioner and Saunar were found to be separately in possession of dangerous drugs.
Ratio Decidendi
On the timeliness of the petition: The Supreme Court noted that the petitioner received the CA's Resolution denying his motion for reconsideration on May 5, 2010. Following the 15-day reglementary period, the petition should have been filed by May 20, 2010. The petitioner filed a motion for extension of time on May 20, 2010, which was received by the Court on May 21, 2010, making it one day late. The Court reiterated the basic rule that a motion for extension must be filed before the expiration of the period sought to be extended, and a late filing renders the court powerless to grant it. Since the motion was filed after the lapse of the prescribed period, there was no longer any period to extend, thus warranting outright denial of the petition. On the nature of the issues raised and the alleged error in conviction: The Supreme Court found that the arguments presented by the petitioner primarily raised questions of fact, specifically concerning whether the prosecution established the elements of illegal possession of dangerous drugs and whether an unbroken chain of custody was shown. The Court emphasized that findings of fact by the CA are generally conclusive and will not be disturbed on appeal, and such factual issues are not proper subjects for a petition for review on certiorari under Rule 45, which is limited to questions of law, unless extraordinary circumstances justify a departure from this doctrine. On the elements of illegal possession and chain of custody; and on the alleged conspiracy and conviction for violation of Section 11, Article II of R.A. 9165: The Supreme Court clarified that the CA and RTC did not appreciate conspiracy against the petitioner. Instead, both courts found that the petitioner and Saunar were separately in possession of dangerous drugs, making them individually liable under R.A. 9165. Furthermore, the Court pointed out that the crime of conspiracy to commit possession of dangerous drugs does not exist under Section 11, Article II of R.A. 9165. The Court stated that the circumstance of conspiracy is not appreciated in this specific offense, and the allegation of conspiracy in the Information was immaterial as the Information sufficiently alleged possession of dangerous drugs.
Main Doctrine
A motion for extension of time to file a pleading must be filed before the expiration of the period sought to be extended; otherwise, the court is powerless to grant it. Furthermore, issues pertaining to the chain of custody of seized items are factual in nature and generally not proper subjects for a petition for review on certiorari under Rule 45.