G.R. No. 192284 , March 11, 2015.
ALEX TIONCO y ORTEGA, Petitioner, vs. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Respondent.

FACTS

Petitioner Alex Tionco y Ortega was charged with violation of Section 11(3), Article II of Republic Act No. 9165 (Illegal Possession of Dangerous Drugs). The Amended Information alleged that on July 24, 2002, in Manila, he was found in possession of 0.047 gram of shabu without authorization. He pleaded not guilty. The prosecution’s version, based on the testimony of PO1 Joel G. Sta. Maria, was that during an anti-criminality patrol at around 3:45 p.m., they saw petitioner from about three meters away holding and examining a plastic sachet containing white crystalline substance believed to be shabu. They approached, confiscated the sachet, arrested petitioner, and brought him and the item to the police station. The sachet was marked with “ATO” (petitioner’s initials) and later submitted to the crime laboratory, where it tested positive for shabu. The defense dispensed with the testimonies of the forensic chemist and the case investigator after stipulations. Petitioner denied the charge, claiming he was arbitrarily arrested in front of his uncle’s house, frisked at the police station where nothing illegal was found, and then detained after a police officer demanded money for his release.

ISSUE

1. Whether the Court of Appeals erred in giving full weight to the prosecution’s evidence despite the alleged failure to prove the integrity and identity of the confiscated shabu.
2. Whether the Court of Appeals erred in affirming the conviction despite alleged irregularities in the apprehending officers’ performance of their duties.

RULING

The Supreme Court denied the petition and affirmed the conviction. The Court ruled that all elements of illegal possession of dangerous drugs were established: (1) petitioner was in possession of an item identified as a prohibited drug (shabu); (2) such possession was not authorized by law; and (3) he freely and consciously possessed it. The positive identification by PO1 Sta. Maria, who testified in a direct and consistent manner, was accorded full weight. The Court found no compelling reason to deviate from the factual findings and credibility assessments of the trial and appellate courts. Petitioner’s claim that it was improbable for him to openly display shabu in broad daylight was rejected, as drug pushers have become increasingly daring. The alleged minor inconsistency in the police testimony regarding petitioner’s position during arrest was deemed trivial and irrelevant. Regarding the chain of custody, the Court held that petitioner’s objections were raised only on appeal and not during trial, thus barred by the rule that questions must be raised in the court below. Moreover, while there was no physical inventory or photograph taken immediately upon seizure, the failure to strictly comply with Section 21 of R.A. 9165 is not fatal as long as the integrity and evidentiary value of the seized item are preserved, which was established in this case. The presentation of the drug in court constituted the corpus delicti, and its chain of custody was duly established from confiscation to laboratory examination. The penalties imposed by the Regional Trial Court, affirmed by the Court of Appeals (imprisonment of twelve years and one day to fifteen years and a fine of P300,000.00), were upheld.