G.R. No. 179265; July 30, 2012
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-Appellee, vs. CRISTINA GUSTAFSSON y NACUA, Accused-Appellant.

FACTS

On September 19, 2000, at the NAIA, authorities received information that a departing passenger was suspected of carrying shabu. Customs and police personnel proceeded to the departure area. While manning the x-ray machine, Lourdes Macabilin noticed a black object inside a luggage bag on the monitor. Her supervisor, PO2 Ermino, separated the bag. The owner, later identified as appellant Cristina Gustafsson, claimed it. Upon inspection, the object was not immediately found. When the bag was x-rayed a second time, black images were seen on shoes inside. The soles of the shoes and a car air freshener were opened, revealing plastic sachets containing white crystalline substance. Appellant was apprehended. A subsequent inventory at the police headquarters led to the accidental discovery of four more plastic sachets concealed in the bag’s wooden support. The total confiscated substance weighed 2,626.49 grams and was confirmed by the NBI to be methamphetamine hydrochloride.
Appellant presented a different version. She claimed that while at the airport, a Muslim-looking man placed several bags on the conveyor belt, one resembling her black trolley bag. After she passed through the walk-through machine, she was accosted, and the man disappeared. She was later told drugs were found in sandals inside her trolley, which she denied owning.

ISSUE

Whether the prosecution proved beyond reasonable doubt appellant’s guilt for illegal possession of dangerous drugs.

RULING

Yes. The Supreme Court affirmed the conviction. The elements of illegal possession under Section 16 of R.A. No. 6425 are: (1) the accused is in possession of an item or object identified as a prohibited drug; (2) such possession is not authorized by law; and (3) the accused freely and consciously possessed the drug. The prosecution successfully established all elements. The drugs were discovered in appellant’s luggage, which she claimed at the airport. Her possession and control of the bag were clearly established by the testimonies of prosecution witnesses who detailed the inspection process and her immediate claim over the luggage. The integrity and identity of the corpus delicti were preserved through a clear chain of custody, from seizure at the x-ray area, marking, inventory, to laboratory examination.
The Court found appellant’s defense of denial and frame-up unconvincing and inherently weak. Such defenses, especially against the positive and credible testimonies of law enforcement officers who are presumed to have regularly performed their duties, cannot prevail. The alleged irregularities in the seizure, such as the initial lack of a search warrant, were deemed inconsequential as the search occurred at an airport—a recognized exception for routine security inspections where the detection of contraband is immediately apparent. The discovery of the drugs during a valid airport security check provided sufficient probable cause for her arrest and the subsequent seizure. The Court also noted that while an unsubscribed affidavit taken from appellant violated her constitutional rights, it was the defense that offered this inadmissible evidence, and thus it did not prejudice the prosecution’s strong case.