This defendant was charged with a violation of the Opium Law, alleged to have been committed as follows: 

"That, on or about the 24th of June, 1911,  in the city of Manila, 'Philippine Islands, the said Choa Tong did, wilfully, unlawfully and criminally, and without any authority whatsoever, have in his power and possession and  under  his control,  and, knowingly,  on his premises, three  grams  of opium ashes, which are a derivative of opium."

After hearing the evidence, the Honorable  A.  S.  Crossfield, judge, found the defendant guilty of the crime charged in the complaint and sentenced him to pay a fine of P300 and the  costs, and in  case of  insolvency to suffer subsidiary imprisonment  in  accordance  with  the law.  From that sentence the defendant appealed.

From an examination of the evidence it appears that on or about the 24th of June, 1911, the defendant, in the city of Manila, was found in the possession of ashes of opium. This fact  was sustained by the  testimony  of three or four witnesses. The defendant presented no proof to the contrary.

The attorney for the defendant, in his brief in this court, alleges that the  proof  presented  during the trial of the cause fails to show that the substance found in the possession of the defendant was opium ashes.  By reference to page 9 of the record, it will be seen that by mutual agreement the substance found in the possession of the defendant was referred to  the Bureau of Science for analysis.  By reference to page 10 it will be seen that  the Bureau of Science made a report  which shows that the said Bureau analyzed said substance and found the same to be  opium ashes.   No objection whatever was made to the sufficiency or to the form of the report of said  analysis.  The attorney for the appellant attempts to make it appear now that the report was not sufficient.  No objection was  made  in the court below to the form or substance of said report.  The objection should have been made at  the time the said analysis was  presented.  Had the  objection been presented at that time,  the prosecuting attorney might have secured  a report in proper form.  The objection seems to be too late now, especially when the same relates purely to the form of the report and  not to its substance.
   
  The  attorney for the  appellant makes the further objection, to wit: That the stenographer who  took the notes during the trial of the cause did not transcribe the same nor certify to the correctness of the  transcription.  It appears that some time after the trial, Mr.  W. M. Barrington, the stenographer who took the notes and before the same were transcribed, died.   Later  another stenographer, Mr. Forrest Clark,  who signs himself as official stenographer of the Court of First Instance of the city of Manila,  transcribed the said notes and certified that said transcription is a full and correct transcript of said notes, to the best of his knowledge and belief, taken by Mr. Barrington in said cause.  It is a well known fact that stenographic notes taken by one stenographer can not  always be read and transcribed by another.  However, where stenographers use the same system of stenography, the notes taken by one may be read by another  familiar with that system.   In the present  case, in view  of the certificate of Mr. Clark (the stenographer who transcribed the notes of Mr. Barrington)  and in the absence  of proof to the effect that the transcription is not a correct transcription of the,notes taken by the former stenographer, we see no objection in accepting the same as being a true and correct transcription of the notes taken of the evidence adduced during the trial of the cause.

From all of the facts of the record, and  with due consideration to the defense  made by  the appellant in this court,  we are of the  opinion that the sentence of the lower court should be affirmed, with costs.

Arellano, C. J., Mapa, Carson, and Trent, JJ., concur.