G.R. No. 182178; August 15, 2011
STEPHEN SY y TIBAGONG, Petitioner, vs. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Respondent.

FACTS

Petitioner Stephen Sy was charged with illegal possession of dangerous drugs under Section 11, Article II of R.A. No. 9165. The Information alleged that on June 11, 2005, in Dumaguete City, he willfully and unlawfully possessed one heat-sealed plastic sachet containing 0.02 gram of methamphetamine hydrochloride (shabu). He pleaded not guilty.
The prosecution evidence, primarily from PO3 Liberato Faelogo, established that police responded to a tip about illegal drug activity in Barangay Looc. They saw Sy from about two meters away, examining a plastic sachet by flicking it. Upon approach and introduction as police officers, Sy attempted to escape on his motorcycle. A struggle ensued during which Sy dropped the sachet, which was retrieved by PO3 Dario Paquera. The sachet was marked “SS 06-11-05” at the scene. Due to a commotion and attempted rescue, the officers left the area without conducting an inventory there. At the police station, an inventory was conducted in the presence of a DOJ representative, a barangay kagawad, a media representative, and a PDEA agent. The seized item was submitted to the crime laboratory, where Forensic Chemist Maria Ana Rivera-Dagasdas confirmed it contained methamphetamine hydrochloride.
The defense presented Sy as its sole witness. He claimed he was in Barangay Looc to book a masseur. While about to board his motorcycle, he was suddenly handcuffed without warning or explanation. He resisted and was searched thoroughly in public view, but nothing illegal was found. He alleged that one of the officers then picked up an unseen object, claimed it was shabu and a lighter, and arrested him. He also claimed he was beaten at the police station and his requests for a drug test were denied.
The Regional Trial Court convicted Sy, sentencing him to an indeterminate penalty of 12 years and 1 day to 14 years and a fine of ₱300,000. The Court of Appeals affirmed the conviction in toto.

ISSUE

Whether the Court of Appeals erred in affirming the conviction by holding that the police officers enjoyed the presumption of regularity in the performance of their duties and that the chain of custody of the seized drug was properly established, thereby proving Sy’s guilt beyond reasonable doubt for illegal possession of dangerous drugs.

RULING

The Supreme Court DENIED the petition and AFFIRMED the decision of the Court of Appeals. The Court held that all elements of illegal possession of dangerous drugs were proven: (1) the accused was in possession of an item identified as a prohibited drug; (2) such possession was not authorized by law; and (3) the accused freely and consciously possessed the drug.
The Court found the warrantless arrest and search incidental thereto valid. The police officers had personal knowledge, based on their direct observation, that Sy was committing a crime (possessing and examining a sachet of shabu) in their presence, justifying a warrantless arrest under Rule 113, Section 5(a) of the Rules of Court. The subsequent search yielding the drug was valid as incidental to a lawful arrest.
Regarding the chain of custody, the Court ruled it was sufficiently established despite the absence of an immediate physical inventory at the place of seizure. The marking of the seized item with “SS 06-11-05” at the scene immediately after confiscation was crucial in preserving its integrity. The justification for leaving the scene—a commotion and attempt to rescue the accused—was reasonable. The required witnesses under Section 21 of R.A. No. 9165 were present during the inventory at the police station. The forensic chemist testified on receiving the marked specimen and confirming it was shabu. The integrity and evidentiary value of the seized drug were therefore preserved.
The defense of denial and frame-up was rejected for being inherently weak and unsupported by clear and convincing evidence. The presumption of regularity in the performance of official duty by the police officers stood in the absence of evidence to the contrary. The minor inconsistencies in the prosecution’s testimony were deemed inconsequential and did not affect the core finding of possession.
Thus, petitioner’s guilt was proven beyond reasonable doubt.