G.R. No. 238873 - People vs. Magayon y Francisco

Two Informations were filed against Sundaram Magayon y Francisco for violations of Sections 5 and 11, Article II of RA 9165. He was acquitted in the sale case (Crim. Case 10738) and tried for possession (Crim. Case 10739).
On arraignment, he pleaded not guilty.

On August 3, 2004 at about 6:00 PM in Guingona Subdivision, Butuan City, police conducted a buy-bust. The poseur-buyer exchanged marked P100 for a teabag-sized packet of alleged marijuana from appellant, who was then arrested.
Police served Search Warrant No. 416-2004 on appellant’s “rented residence and its premises,” including an attached store. In the presence of barangay officials and media, they seized 74 small packets of marijuana, dried marijuana in a plastic bag and in a yellow ice-cream container, marijuana stalks, and the marked money. A Certificate of Inventory and a Certificate of Orderly Search were prepared; appellant and civilian witnesses signed (appellant refused and “not willing to sign” was noted).

PO2 Rey Gabrielle Busa Maderal marked the seized items with his initials, prepared the booking, return on the search warrant, joint affidavit of apprehension, and indorsement to the PNP Crime Laboratory. He delivered the items to the crime lab the same day.
Forensic Chemist PSI Norman Gales Jovita immediately marked the specimens (RBM-A1-08-03-04 to RBM-C29-08-03-04, etc.), tested and weighed them, and issued Chemistry Reports D-125-2004, D-126-2004, and D-127-2004, all positive for marijuana.

Witness Richard Amado testified that appellant was visiting his girlfriend’s rented store when police arrived; appellant and girlfriend were outside during the search.
Appellant claimed he was only a user, not a peddler; the packets belonged to his girlfriend or her ex-husband. He executed two counter-affidavits seeking leniency and probation, then later recanted parts in open court.

The RTC found all elements of illegal possession under Section 11, Article II of RA 9165 proven beyond reasonable doubt as to 381.3065 g of marijuana, sentenced appellant to 20 years + 1 day to 30 years and a P500,000 fine, and acquitted him in the sale case.
The CA affirmed, ruling appellant waived challenges to the warrant and evidence, the warrant described the premises with particularity, the search and inventory were valid, the chain of custody intact, and appellant had constructive possession.
Appellant filed a petition before the SC; the OSG did not file a supplemental brief.

Whether the warrant validly covered the store and described the place with constitutional particularity.
Whether search and inventory complied with Rule 126, Section 8.

Whether the prosecution proved appellant’s free and conscious possession (actual or constructive) of the seized drugs beyond reasonable doubt.
Whether the chain of custody requirements of Section 21, Article II of RA 9165 were observed to preserve the integrity and identity of the evidence.