In Xiuquin Shi v. People, the Supreme Court affirmed the conviction of Xiuquin Shi (Sy) for illegal possession of dangerous drugs, even though the drugs were not found directly on her person. The Court emphasized the concept of constructive possession, holding that Sy had dominion and control over the vehicle where the drugs were discovered. This ruling underscores that physical possession is not always necessary to establish criminal liability in drug cases; control and knowledge can suffice.

Riding Shotgun with ‘Shabu’: How Much Knowledge Makes You Liable?

The case revolves around the arrest of Sunxiao Xu (Chua), Wenxian Hong, and Xiuquin Shi (Sy) following a buy-bust operation. Chua and Hong were convicted of selling 496.73 grams of methamphetamine hydrochloride (shabu) to an undercover officer. Additionally, all three were convicted for possessing approximately 7006.68 grams of shabu found in a bag inside the car. Sy, however, claimed she was merely present in the vehicle and unaware of the drugs.

The central legal question was whether Sy, despite not physically possessing the drugs, could be held liable for illegal possession based on the principle of constructive possession. The prosecution argued that Sy’s presence during the drug transaction, coupled with her relationship to the car’s owner (Hong), established her dominion and control over the drugs. The defense countered that Sy was simply an observer, unaware of the illicit activity.

The Supreme Court sided with the prosecution, emphasizing that possession under the law includes both actual and constructive possession. Actual possession refers to direct physical control, while constructive possession exists when the accused has dominion and control over the item, or the right to exercise such control. The court cited Section 5, Rule 113 of the Rules of Criminal Procedure, which allows for a search incidental to a lawful arrest, justifying the search of the vehicle where the drugs were found.

The Court explained that Sy’s presence in her husband’s car, where a significant quantity of shabu was openly present, created a presumption of animus possidendi, or intent to possess. This presumption, the Court noted, could only be refuted by a satisfactory explanation, which Sy failed to provide. Sy’s defense that she was merely a passenger and unaware of the drugs was weakened by several factors. First, the Court presumed joint ownership and dominion over the car due to her marital relationship with Hong. Second, the Court highlighted Sy’s silence and lack of inquiry during the obvious drug transaction, suggesting tacit approval. Finally, the Court noted Sy’s attempt to make a phone call immediately after the arrest was announced, indicating a guilty mind.

The Court addressed Sy’s arguments regarding non-compliance with Section 21 of Republic Act No. 9165, the Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002, which outlines the chain of custody requirements for seized drugs. While acknowledging that the marking, inventory, and photographing of the seized items were not conducted immediately at the place of arrest, the Court found that the apprehending officers provided justifiable reasons for the deviation. The officers testified that the location was a busy public area, and they needed to secure the drugs and suspects quickly while also pursuing a possible follow-up operation. The Court emphasized the importance of preserving the integrity and evidentiary value of the seized items, which it found was adequately maintained in this case.

The Court addressed the absence of representatives from the media and the Department of Justice (DOJ) during the inventory and photographing of the seized items. The officers explained they attempted to contact the DOJ, but no representative was available, and they deliberately excluded the media to avoid jeopardizing the follow-up operation. While acknowledging that strict compliance with Section 21 is preferred, the Court found that substantial compliance was sufficient in this case, given the circumstances and the presence of Barangay Kagawads (local officials) as witnesses.

The defense also raised the issue of frame-up and extortion. The Court dismissed this claim as a common defense tactic in drug cases, requiring clear and convincing evidence, which was absent here. The Court noted the lack of any criminal or administrative charges filed against the officers, and the sheer volume of drugs seized made the allegation of planting evidence implausible.

Building on this principle, the court also stated that the testimonies of the arresting officers deserved greater weight than the denial of the accused. The integrity and evidentiary value of the seized drugs were upheld. The Court, therefore, affirmed the Court of Appeals’ decision, upholding Sy’s conviction for illegal possession of dangerous drugs and sentencing her to life imprisonment and a fine of P3,000,000.00.

FAQs

What is constructive possession?	Constructive possession means having control or dominion over an object, even if you don’t physically possess it. It implies the power and intent to control the item.
What is animus possidendi?	Animus possidendi refers to the intent to possess something. In drug cases, it means the intent to exercise control over the illegal drugs.
What is Section 21 of RA 9165?	Section 21 of Republic Act No. 9165 outlines the procedure for handling seized drugs, including immediate inventory and photographing in the presence of specific witnesses. It aims to ensure the integrity of the evidence.
Why weren’t media and DOJ representatives present during the inventory?	The police officers testified they attempted to contact the DOJ, but no one was available. They excluded the media to avoid compromising a potential follow-up operation.
What was the significance of Sy’s attempted phone call?	The Court interpreted Sy’s attempt to make a phone call immediately after the arrest as indicative of a guilty mind, suggesting she knew about the drugs.
How did the court address the claim of frame-up?	The Court dismissed the frame-up claim due to a lack of clear and convincing evidence. It noted the large quantity of drugs seized made planting evidence unlikely.
What penalties did Sy receive?	Sy was sentenced to life imprisonment and a fine of P3,000,000.00 for illegal possession of dangerous drugs.
Why was Sy held liable even though the drugs were not on her person?	The Court applied the principle of constructive possession. Sy was present, it was presumed that she had knowledge of the drug in the husband’s car, and was not able to overturn it, therefore, she was held liable for illegal possession.

The Xiuquin Shi v. People case serves as a reminder that presence alone is not enough to escape liability in drug-related offenses. Constructive possession can be established through circumstantial evidence demonstrating control and knowledge. The court’s emphasis on upholding the chain of custody and considering justifiable reasons for deviations provides guidance for law enforcement and clarifies the application of RA 9165.

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 v. PEOPLE, G.R. No. 228519 and 231363, March 16, 2022