G.R. No. 193379 ; August 15, 2011
CESAR D. CASTRO, Petitioner, vs. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Respondent.

FACTS

Petitioner Cesar D. Castro was charged with illegal possession of methamphetamine hydrochloride (shabu) under Sec. 11, Art. II of R.A. 9165. The Information alleged that on July 25, 2003, in Laoag City, he willfully and unlawfully possessed one plastic sachet containing approximately 0.1 gram of shabu without authority. He pleaded not guilty. The prosecution evidence, as summarized by the trial court, established that police officers, acting on a tip, saw Castro near the Iglesia Ni Cristo church. Upon recognizing the officers, Castro panicked, took something from his pocket, and threw it behind him. SPO2 Ernesto Bal picked up the discarded item, a plastic sachet containing white crystalline substance. The item was turned over to evidence custodian SPO2 Loreto Ancheta, who marked it and sent it for examination. P/Insp. Valeriano Panem Laya II, a forensic officer, confirmed the substance tested positive for shabu, weighing 0.08 gram. Castro denied the charge, testifying that he was searched by the police but nothing was found on him, and he was later shown a plastic sachet at the station which he did not recognize.

ISSUE

Whether the Court of Appeals erred in affirming the trial court’s decision finding petitioner Cesar D. Castro guilty beyond reasonable doubt of illegal possession of dangerous drugs under R.A. 9165.

RULING

The Supreme Court DENIED the petition and AFFIRMED the assailed Court of Appeals Decision. The Court held that all elements of illegal possession of dangerous drugs were proven beyond reasonable doubt: (1) the accused was in possession of a dangerous drug; (2) such possession was not authorized by law; and (3) the accused freely and consciously possessed the drug. The positive and categorical testimonies of the police officers, who witnessed Castro throwing away the sachet, prevailed over his denial. The Court ruled that the integrity and evidentiary value of the seized drug were preserved. While the officers did not strictly comply with the inventory and witness requirements under Section 21 of R.A. 9165, such non-compliance did not invalidate the seizure. The provision allows for non-compliance under justifiable grounds provided the integrity of the seized items is preserved. Here, the chain of custody was established through testimonies detailing the seizure, turnover to the evidence custodian, marking, and forensic examination, which confirmed the substance as shabu. The defense of denial, being inherently weak, could not overcome the prosecution’s evidence.