G.R. No. 206910 October 14, 2015
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-Appellee vs. JULIET PANCHO, Accused-Appellant

FACTS

Accused-appellant Juliet Pancho was charged with violating Section 11, Article II of Republic Act No. 9165 (Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002) for illegal possession of dangerous drugs. The Information alleged that on September 14, 2005, in Cebu City, she had in her possession and control three heat-sealed transparent plastic bags containing a total of 14.49 grams of methamphetamine hydrochloride (shabu) without legal authority. Based on a search warrant, a police team searched the house of accused-appellant and her husband. Police Officer 1 Roy Carlo Veloso (PO1 Veloso), the designated searcher, found three packets of suspected shabu under a jewelry box on top of a cabinet divider in a bedroom on the second floor. Police Officer 2 Benigno Andrew Ilagan (PO2 Ilagan), the recorder, marked the seized items. The items were later submitted to the PNP Crime Laboratory, which confirmed the presence of methamphetamine hydrochloride. The Regional Trial Court (RTC) found accused-appellant guilty and sentenced her to life imprisonment and a fine of ₱1,000,000. The Court of Appeals affirmed the conviction but reduced the fine to ₱500,000. Accused-appellant appealed, arguing inconsistencies in the testimonies of prosecution witnesses, the failure to present the barangay tanods as witnesses, non-compliance with Section 21 of R.A. No. 9165 regarding the custody and handling of seized drugs, and the failure to submit the seized items to the court that issued the search warrant as required by the Rules of Court.

ISSUE

Whether the guilt of accused-appellant for illegal possession of dangerous drugs was proven beyond reasonable doubt.

RULING

Yes, the Supreme Court affirmed the decision of the Court of Appeals. The prosecution duly established all elements of illegal possession of dangerous drugs: (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 was freely and consciously aware of being in possession of the drug. The search, conducted by virtue of a valid warrant with barangay tanods as witnesses, led to the discovery of the shabu in a room of accused-appellant’s house. The Court found the alleged inconsistencies in the testimonies of the police officers to be trivial and not to affect the core finding of possession. The chain of custody of the seized drugs was satisfactorily established through the testimonies of the police officers, from seizure to marking to laboratory examination. The failure to immediately deliver the seized items to the issuing judge was rendered immaterial by the intact chain of custody. The weight of 14.49 grams of shabu fell within the range punishable under Section 11 of R.A. No. 9165 by life imprisonment and a fine of ₱400,000 to ₱500,000. The penalty imposed by the Court of Appeals—life imprisonment and a ₱500,000 fine—was affirmed.