Case Summary (G.R. No. 238873)
Key Dates
August 3, 2004 – Buy-bust operation and subsequent implementation of a search warrant
January 26, 2018 – Court of Appeals Decision affirming conviction
September 16, 2020 – Supreme Court Decision
Applicable Law
1987 Constitution, Article III, Section 2 (Search and Seizure)
Rule 126, Section 8 of the Rules of Criminal Procedure (Presence of Witnesses in Searches)
RA 9165 (Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002), Article II, Sections 5 (Sale) and 11 (Possession)
RA 9165, Article II, Section 21 (Chain of Custody)
Facts of the Case
Police officers, assisted by a confidential asset, conducted a buy-bust at the appellant’s residence. PO2 delos Santos, acting as poseur-buyer, exchanged marked money for a teabag of suspect marijuana. The officers then arrested the appellant and served a duly issued search warrant. In the presence of barangay officials and media representatives, they inventoried and seized 74 small packets of marijuana found throughout the house and store, plus additional loose marijuana in a plastic container and cellophane bag. The marked money was recovered from the appellant’s live-in partner, who was also arrested. All seized items were turned over to the police station, marked, photographed, and submitted to the PNP Crime Laboratory, where PSI Jovita confirmed their identity as marijuana.
Trial Court Proceedings and Decision
Two Informations were filed against the appellant for violation of Sections 5 and 11, Article II of RA 9165. He was acquitted of sale (Section 5) but convicted for possession (Section 11) of 381.3065 g of marijuana. The trial court credited the prosecution’s testimony on the valid issuance and service of the search warrant, the presence of requisite witnesses during search and inventory, and the appellant’s constructive possession of the premises. Sentence imposed: 20 years and 1 day to 30 years imprisonment, fine of ₱500,000, and forfeiture of the seized marijuana.
Court of Appeals Ruling
The Court of Appeals affirmed, holding that:
- Appellant waived any objection to the search warrant and the admissibility of evidence by failing to raise them at trial.
- The warrant described the residence and its premises with sufficient particularity, encompassing the store area.
- The search conformed with Rule 126, Section 8, as it was witnessed by barangay officials and the appellant himself.
- The appellant had constructive possession of the seized drugs.
- The prosecution sufficiently established the chain of custody, showing no break in integrity from seizure to laboratory examination.
Issues on Appeal
- Whether the search of the store was valid under the Constitution and relevant procedural rules.
- Whether the appellant’s guilt for illegal possession of 381.3065 g of marijuana was proven beyond reasonable doubt.
Supreme Court Majority Ruling
- Objections to the search warrant and evidence were deemed waived by the appellant’s failure to move to quash or object at trial.
- The 1987 Constitution’s requirement for particular description was met by specifying the appellant’s “rented residence and its premises,” which necessarily included the store.
- Rule 126, Section 8 was complied with: the appellant and two barangay officials witnessed the search; his presence was corroborated by his own testimony.
- Constructive possession was established: the appellant resided with his live-in partner at the searched address and admitted in his counter-affidavits that the drugs were in his possession.
- Extrajudicial admissions in the appellant’s sworn counter-affidavits, executed with counsel’s assistance, constituted voluntary confessions of possession for personal use, binding him to the entire quantity seized.
- The chain of custody remained intact: seized items were immediately marked by PO2 Maderal, inventoried, photographed, and continuously under police control from seizure to laboratory submission; no evidence of tampering or substitution appeared on record.
Accordingly, the Supreme Court denied the appeal
Case Syllabus (G.R. No. 238873)
Facts of the Case
- On August 3, 2004, at about 6 PM, PO2 Rey Gabrielle Busa Maderal and other police officers conducted a buy-bust operation at appellant’s residence and adjacent store on 6th Street, Guingona Subdivision, Barangay 25, Jose P. Rizal, Butuan City.
- A confidential asset exchanged a marked ₱100 bill for a teabag-sized packet of alleged marijuana, upon which police moved in and arrested appellant.
- Appellant’s “wife” (later described as live-in partner) allegedly received the marked money from appellant immediately after the exchange.
Implementation of the Search Warrant
- The arresting officers informed appellant that they held Search Warrant No. 416-2004 authorizing the search of his “rented residence and its premises.”
- They waited for barangay officials (including Kagawad Carmelita Torres Mangasep and Kagawad Manuel Sisora) and media representatives (DXBC, ABS-CBN) to witness the search.
- Seized items included seventy-four small packets of marijuana, one bundle of marijuana stalks (104.3403 g), crushed marijuana leaves in a plastic bag and in a yellow ice-cream container (276.9662 g), and the marked ₱100 bill.
- In appellant’s presence and before witnesses, inventory and certificate of orderly search were prepared; appellant refused to sign the certificate (“not willing to sign” was noted).
- Appellant, his common-law wife, and seized items were brought to the police station for booking, investigation, and custody by PO2 Maderal.
Forensic Examination
- Police Chief Inspector Gamboa requested chemical analysis of three sets of items: the buy-bust packet, 74 teabag packets seized in the search, and the plastic bag + ice-cream container specimens.
- Police Senior Inspector Norman G. Jovita marked, weighed, and tested all specimens, finding them positive for marijuana.
- Three chemistry reports (D-125-2004, D-126-2004, D-127-2004) documented his findings; markings bore his personal inscriptions.
Prosecution’s Evidence
- Search Warrant No. 416-2004, Return on Warrant, Joint Affidavit of Apprehension, Certificate of Inventory, Orderly Search Certification, photocopies of marked money, blotter entries, laboratory requests, chemistry reports on seized items, and coupon bonds containing photographs.
Defense’s Evidence
- Richard Bentoso Amado testified that he accompanied appellant from a drinking session at a cousin’s house to appellant’s girlfriend “Che-che” on 6th Street, then briefly left for a nearby toilet. Upon return, he saw police setting a cordon and observed appellant’s apprehension.
- Appellant testified that he visited “Che-che” to borrow money for drinks, was surprised by a knock and a displayed search warrant bearing his name, and denied ownership of