Case Summary (G.R. No. 129919)
Procedural Posture and Charges
Two informations were filed against appellant for violations of Sections 5 and 11 of RA 9165 (Crim. Cases 10738 and 10739). Appellant was acquitted in Crim. Case 10738 (sale), while Crim. Case 10739 (possession) proceeded to verdict. The Information in Crim. Case 10739 charged possession of 276.96662 grams of dried marijuana fruiting tops and 104.3403 grams of marijuana stalks (total 381.3065 grams), in violation of Section 11, Article II of RA 9165. Appellant pleaded not guilty; prosecution and defense witnesses were presented; the trial court convicted under Section 11 and imposed an indeterminate penalty and fine. The Court of Appeals affirmed that conviction; the appellant appealed to the Supreme Court.
Prosecution’s Version and Evidence at Trial
The prosecution’s factual narrative: earlier on August 3, 2004 a test buy was conducted; later around 6:00 PM a buy-bust operation and subsequent implementation of a search warrant occurred at appellant’s rented residence (which included a store area). PO2 Maderal and officers observed the marked P100 exchanged for a teabag-sized packet; appellant and his “wife” (self-described by appellant as girlfriend/live-in partner) were arrested. Police claim immediate inventory and photographing were made in the presence of barangay officials and media; a Certificate of Inventory, a certificate of orderly search, joint affidavits, and photographic evidence were produced and identified. Forensic chemist PSI Jovita received specimens marked with RBM‑A/B/C/D markings, conducted testing, and issued chemistry reports showing they were marijuana. The prosecution formally offered search warrant, return, affidavits, inventory, certificates, marked money photocopy, laboratory reports (D-126, D-127), coupon bonds with photographs, and the physical seized items.
Defense Version and Appellant’s Affidavits
Defense testimony: witness Amado described being remotely present and only returning to find police cordoning the place; appellant testified he and his girlfriend were at the rented house, that the police showed a search warrant and recovered marijuana from his girlfriend’s bag and a marked P100 from her wallet, and claimed he refrained from answering investigators pending counsel. Appellant executed two counter-affidavits with counsel de parte (Atty. Poculan): the August 14, 2004 affidavit asserted the marijuana was left at his residence, that he intended to report it, and sought leniency and to absolve his live‑in partner; the February 2, 2005 affidavit stated he was a user not a pusher and requested reinvestigation and rehabilitation. In court appellant later attempted partial recantation, insisting only the admission of being a user was true and that other parts were not his idea.
Trial Court Findings and Sentence
The trial court, in its March 13, 2015 Omnibus Decision, convicted appellant for illegal possession under Section 11, RA 9165, relying principally on: presence of civilian witnesses during search; signatures on inventory by appellant and civilians; compliance with search-warrant procedures and submission of return and laboratory withdrawal request; and constructive/actual possession doctrine because the prohibited items were found in appellant’s house. The court found proof of all offense elements and sentenced appellant to an indeterminate penalty (20 years & 1 day to 30 years) and P500,000 fine; the marijuana was declared forfeited.
Court of Appeals’ Ruling on Appeal
On appeal the CA affirmed, addressing the major defense contentions: (1) the search warrant and seizure objections were not raised at trial and thus deemed waived; (2) the search warrant description of “rented residence and its premises” was sufficiently particular to include the store; (3) the search and inventory complied with procedural requirements (Section 8, Rule 126) and appellant was present during the search; (4) appellant had constructive possession given his residence with the live‑in partner and prior admissions; and (5) the chain of custody was intact and properly established, so identity and integrity of the seized items were preserved.
Issues Presented to the Supreme Court
The Supreme Court considered two principal issues: (1) whether the search of the store was valid; and (2) whether appellant’s guilt for illegal possession under Section 11, Article II of RA 9165 was proven beyond reasonable doubt.
Supreme Court Majority: Waiver of Objections and Sufficiency of Warrant Description
The majority emphasized that appellant never assailed the search warrant or objected to the admissibility of evidence in the trial court; raising such objections for the first time on appeal was held waived (citing People v. NuAez). On the sufficiency of description requirement under Section 2, Article III of the 1987 Constitution, the Court applied the familiar test that the description is sufficient if officers with the warrant can, with reasonable effort, identify the place and distinguish it from others; a premise identified as occupied by the accused satisfies the requirement. The warrant’s phrase “rented residence and its premises” at the stated address and testimony that the store formed part of the house led the Court to conclude the warrant described the premises with adequate particularity.
Supreme Court Majority: Compliance with Presence-of-Witnesses Rule
Addressing Section 8, Rule 126, the majority found adequate compliance because prosecution witnesses (PO2 Maderal and Barangay Kagawad Mangasep) testified that appellant and his live‑in partner were present during the search and inventory. The trial court’s and CA’s credibility determinations were accorded substantial respect; appellant’s own testimony recounting the sequence of the search reinforced his presence. Defense testimony to the contrary (Amado) was found less credible.
Supreme Court Majority: Possession, Constructive Possession, and Admissions
The majority analyzed the elements of illegal possession under Section 11: possession of a prohibited drug, lack of legal authorization, and free and conscious possession by the accused. The Court recognized both actual and constructive possession doctrines, noting that exclusive possession is not necessary and that shared dominion suffices. It relied on appellant’s own sworn counter-affidavits (August 14, 2004 and February 2, 2005) and in‑court admissions as judicial/extrajudicial admissions establishing his residence at the place and his responsibility for the drugs. The Court treated those affidavits, executed with counsel, as voluntary and binding admissions that sustained conviction; appellant’s later recantation was held insufficient to overcome the earlier statements.
Supreme Court Majority: Chain of Custody, Section 21, and Identity of Seized Items
The majority addressed the chain of custody under Section 21, RA 9165, and held that the testimony of PO2 Maderal and the forensic chemist sufficiently established each custodial link from seizure and inventory to laboratory examination and presentation in court. The Court accepted the chemist’s marking, testing, and chemistry reports and PO2 Maderal’s testimony about inventory and turnover, concluding no break in the chain of custody and no compromise of the integrity of the evidence. Because appellant had made admissions concerning possession and identity of the seized items, the Court concluded Section 21 objections, even if asserted, would not change the admissibility or weight of the evidence as applied in this case.
Supreme Court Majority: Conclusion and Penalty
The Supreme Court majority denied the appeal and affirmed the CA decision. Sundaram Magayon y Francisco was found guilty of illegal possession under Section 11, Article II of RA 9165, sentenced to an indeterminate penalty of 20 years and 1 day to 30 years, fined P500,000, and the marijuana forfeited to the government.
Dissent (Justice Caguioa): Overview and Principal Arguments
Justice Caguioa dissented. The dissent argued that appellant’s counter‑affidavits did not amount to a confession of possession of the entire volume of drugs and that they were equivocal, ambiguous, and not a categorical acknowledgment of ownership of the 381.3065 grams recovered. The dissent stressed the legal distinction between an admission and a confession, noting the affidavits used qualifying language (e.g., “alleged”) and failed to specify quantity or unequivocally claim ownership of all seized items; the confession standard and the need to corroborate extrajudicial confession with corpus delicti were emphasized.
Dissent: Chain of Custody Defects and Failure to Preserve Integrity
The dissent focused primarily on procedural defects in the custodial chain: (a) failure to show immediate marking of seized items at the place of seizure—markings described in testimony did not appear in the Certificate of Inventory or photographs taken at the scene; (b) discrepancies between the Certificate of Inventory and the Request for Laboratory Examination as to markings and details; (c) photographs admitted in evidence di
Case Syllabus (G.R. No. 129919)
The Case
- Decision of the Supreme Court, First Division (Per Justice Lazaro-Javier) resolving an appeal from the Court of Appeals (CA-G.R. CR-HC No. 01411-MIN) affirming the trial court's conviction of Sundaram Magayon y Francisco for violation of Section 11, Article II of Republic Act No. 9165 (Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002).
- Appeal assails CA Decision dated January 26, 2018 which affirmed trial court's verdict of conviction dated March 13, 2015.
- Appeal docketed as G.R. No. 238873, decided September 16, 2020 (885 Phil. 579).
Procedural Posture and Relevant Cases Before Trial Court
- Two separate Informations filed against appellant for violation of Sections 5 and 11, Article II of RA 9165: Criminal Case Nos. 10738 (for Section 5) and 10739 (for Section 11).
- Appellant was acquitted in Criminal Case No. 10738; this syllabus focuses on Criminal Case No. 10739 (possession under Section 11).
- Information in Criminal Case No. 10739 charged possession on or about the evening of August 3, 2004 at 6th Street, Guingona Subdivision, Barangay 25, JP Rizal, Butuan City, of 276.9662 grams of dried marijuana fruiting tops and one bundle of marijuana stalks weighing 104.3403 grams, alleged to be a dangerous drug, contrary to law (Violation of Sec. 11, Art. II, RA No. 9165).
- On arraignment, appellant pleaded not guilty.
Prosecution and Defense Witnesses at Trial
- Prosecution witnesses: PO2 Rey Gabrielle Busa Maderal (referred at times as PO3 Maderal), Barangay Kagawad Carmelita Torres Mangasep, and Police Senior Inspector Norman Gales Jovita (forensic chemist).
- Defense witnesses: Richard Bentoso Amado and appellant Sundaram Magayon.
- Prosecution offered documentary exhibits including search warrant, return, joint affidavit of apprehension, certificate of inventory, certification of proper and orderly raid, photocopy of marked P100.00, laboratory requests and chemistry reports (including Nos. D-126-2004 and D-127-2004), photographs and coupon bonds, requests for withdrawal of seized items, and appellant's two counter-affidavits (Exhibits R and S).
Prosecution Version — Buy-Bust, Arrest, Search, Seizure and Chain of Custody
- Buy-bust operation and test buy:
- On August 3, 2004, earlier that day, a test buy was conducted which prompted application for a search warrant around 11:00 a.m.; the buy-bust that led to the arrest occurred about 6:00 p.m.
- PO2 Jaime delos Santos accompanied the confidential asset (poseur-buyer) to the store attached to appellant's residence; PO2 Maderal stood near the store observing.
- PO2 Maderal testified he clearly saw the asset exchange the marked P100.00 with a teabag-sized packet of alleged marijuana from appellant; arresting officers then closed in and arrested appellant.
- The poseur-buyer gave the packet to PO2 delos Santos who in turn gave it to PO2 Maderal for safekeeping.
- Marked money (P100.00) was recovered from appellant's "wife" (appellant contended it was his girlfriend) who received it from appellant right after the transaction.
- Search and seizure:
- Arresting officers informed appellant of a search warrant on his premises; they waited for barangay officials and media to arrive before commencing the search.
- Appellant and his "wife" (girlfriend) were present during the search.
- Search yielded seventy-four (74) small packets of marijuana in different parts of the house including the store; nineteen (19) packets in a black bag, twenty-six (26) and twenty-nine (29) packets found in the store and a room; a plastic bag of marijuana and marijuana inside a yellow plastic ice cream container were found inside appellant's room.
- PO2 Maderal prepared the inventory of seized items in the presence of barangay officials and appellant; photographs of the seized items were taken; certificate of orderly search signed by barangay and media witnesses; appellant refused to sign the certificate and "not willing to sign" was written in the signature space.
- Items and appellant were brought to the police station for booking and investigation; PO2 Maderal kept custody of the items, signed the affidavit of apprehension, prepared booking, indorsement to the PNP Crime Laboratory, return on the search warrant, and affidavit of apprehension; with leave of court, items submitted to the crime laboratory for chemical examination; PO2 Maderal delivered the items to the crime laboratory the same day and affirmed they were the same items recovered from appellant.
- Forensic examination:
- Forensic Chemist PSI Norman Gales Jovita received three laboratory requests from PCI Martin Mercado Gamboa—examining (1) one tea bag of purported marijuana from test buy; (2) one tea bag from buy-bust marked "RBM-A1-08-03-04 (BUY-BUST)"; and (3) seventy-four (74) tea bags/packets marked as RBM-A1 to RBM-A19, RBM-B1 to RBM-B26, RBM-C1 to RBM-C29, plus a plastic bag and a plastic ice cream container from the search.
- PSI Jovita marked/specimen-coded items as Chemistry Reports D-125-2004, D-126-2004, and D-127-2004 and weighed and tested specimens, finding them positive for marijuana; these findings were recorded in three separate chemistry reports (prosecution formally offered two of the three).
Defense Version — Amado and Appellant Testimonies
- Amado's testimony:
- On August 3, 2004 he was attending a festivity and drinking at Purok 7, Barangay Obrero; he accompanied appellant to appellant's girlfriend's rented house on 6th Street around 3:00 p.m.; Amado stayed outside about five meters away; he used the toilet at appellant's sister's house thirty meters away.
- When he returned, he saw people setting up a cordon; appellant and his girlfriend were later brought out handcuffed; police searched inside the store; appellant and his girlfriend were boarded into a patrol car.
- Appellant's testimony:
- On August 3, 2004 he visited his brother in Barangay Obrero, drinking; he went to girlfriend Syntyche Litera ("Che-che")'s rented house attached to a store to ask for money; someone came to buy a "Sprite"; three knocks on the door — a man with a folder showing "search warrant" and appellant's name; police searched the store, recovered marijuana from his girlfriend's bag and a P100.00 from her wallet, compared the bill with a photocopy, placed items on a table, wrote a "Certificate of Inventory" and made him sign; barangay kagawad Mangasep was called to sign; items and appellant were brought to police station.
- At the station, a media person asked questions and advised him to consult a lawyer; he secured counsel de parte, Atty. Nelbert Poculan, and executed counter-affidavits.
- Appellant asserted he was a user and not a pusher; he later testified that it was Cheche's former husband who left the drugs in her house.
- Appellant's two Counter-Affidavits:
- Counter-Affidavit dated August 14, 2004 (identified and marked): stated Cheche had nothing to do with activities in their residence and that the marked money found in her possession came from him because he handed it to her because he was about to bathe; stated marijuana leaves were left at his residence, he was about to report it to authorities, and he executed affidavit for leniency and to seek probation benefits; sought absolution of Cheche from liability.
- Counter-Affidavit dated February 2, 2005 (identified and marked as prosecution's Exhibit R): averred he was not a pusher but a user; denied existence of poseur-buyer affidavit; asserted seized drugs were for personal use and not for sale; alleged illegal seizure and search due to insufficient particularity in the search warrant; executed affidavit to state he was only a user and to be admitted to rehabilitation.
Trial Court Findings and Decision (Omnibus Decision dated March 13, 2015)
- Trial court convicted appellant for illegal possession under Section 11, Art. II of RA 9165 and acquitted him in Criminal Case No. 10738 (Section 5) for insufficiency of evidence.
- Trial court's rationale emphasized:
- Civilian witnesses accompanied police officers during the search.
- Inventory of seized items was signed by appellant and civilian witnesses.
- Apprehending officers followed rules on service of search warrant, submitted return and request for withdrawal for lab examination.
- Possession may be actual or constructive; sufficient that prohibited items were found in appellant's house despite his claim that store was leased by girlfriend.
- Sentence imposed:
- Indeterminate penalty of twenty (20) years and one (1) day as minimum to thirty (30) years as maximum.
- Fine of Five Hundred Thousand Pesos (P500,000.00) without subsidiary imprisonment in case of insolvency.
- Appellant to serve sentence in Davao Prison and Penal Farm; preventive imprisonment credited per Article 29 RPC; marijuana declared forfeited in favor of government.
Appellate Proceedings — Court of Appeals (Decision dated January 26, 2018)
- Appellant argued on appeal:
- Search was invalid because search warrant described only the house and not the store; officers should have included the store; constitutional requirement of particular description violated (Sec. 2, Art. III).
- He did not witness the search as required by Section 8, Rule 1