People v. Magayon
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: On August 3, 2004, police officers conducted a buy-bust operation and a search of appellant Sundaram Magayon y Francisco's residence at 6th Street, Guingona Subdivision, Butuan City. During the operation, a teabag-sized packet of alleged marijuana was exchanged for marked money. A subsequent search of the premises, conducted in the presence of barangay officials and media personnel, yielded seventy-four (74) small packets of marijuana, a plastic bag of marijuana stalks, and dried crushed marijuana leaves in a yellow plastic ice cream container. Appellant and his girlfriend were present during the search. Procedural History: The prosecution filed two Informations against appellant for violations of Sections 5 and 11 of RA 9165. Appellant was acquitted in Criminal Case No. 10738 (violation of Sec. 5) but convicted in Criminal Case No. 10739 (violation of Sec. 11) by the Regional Trial Court (RTC). The RTC sentenced appellant to an indeterminate penalty of twenty (20) years and one (1) day to thirty (30) years and a fine of P500,000.00. The Court of Appeals (CA) affirmed the RTC's decision. Appellant appealed to the Supreme Court. The Petition: Appellant assailed the CA's decision, arguing that the search was invalid, the items seized were inadmissible, the prosecution failed to prove his ownership or control over the premises, and the arresting officers failed to comply with the chain of custody requirements.
Issue(s)
Whether the search conducted on the store was valid. Whether appellant's guilt for violation of Section 11, Article II of RA 9165 (illegal possession of dangerous drugs) was proved beyond a reasonable doubt.
Ruling
The Supreme Court denied the appeal and affirmed the decision of the Court of Appeals. Appellant Sundaram Magayon y Francisco was found guilty beyond reasonable doubt of illegal possession of dangerous drugs under Section 11, Article II of RA 9165 and sentenced to an indeterminate penalty of twenty (20) years and one (1) day as minimum to thirty (30) years as maximum, and to pay a fine of P500,000.00.
Ratio Decidendi
On the validity of the search: The Court held that appellant's failure to object to the search warrant and the evidence obtained therefrom during the trial constituted a waiver of such objections. Therefore, these objections could not be belatedly raised on appeal. Furthermore, the description of the place to be searched in the warrant, as "appellant's rented residence and its premises," was deemed sufficient to include the store, especially since the police were familiar with the location from a prior test buy and the store formed part of the residence. The Court also found that the search was conducted in the presence of the appellant, as evidenced by his own testimony detailing the events of the search, thus complying with Section 8, Rule 126 of the Rules of Court. On whether appellant's guilt was proved beyond reasonable doubt: The Court affirmed the elements of illegal possession of dangerous drugs: (1) possession by the accused of a prohibited drug; (2) the possession is not authorized by law; and (3) free and conscious possession. Possession includes constructive possession, meaning the drug is under the dominion and control of the accused. The Court found that appellant had dominion and control over the place where the drugs were found, citing his own counter-affidavits which stated he resided at the address and was in a live-in relationship with his girlfriend who rented the place. These admissions, made with the assistance of counsel, estopped him from claiming otherwise. Moreover, appellant's counter-affidavits contained inculpatory admissions, stating the drugs were for his personal use and that his girlfriend had nothing to do with the activities in their residence, and that the marked money found in her possession came from him. These extrajudicial confessions, voluntarily made with counsel's assistance, were binding on him. The Court also found that the chain of custody was sufficiently established through the testimonies of PO2 Maderal and the forensic chemist, detailing the seizure, inventory, booking, investigation, and forensic analysis, up to the presentation in court. Appellant's admission that the seized drugs were marked and inventoried at the place of search further corroborated compliance with the chain of custody rule.
Main Doctrine
Failure to object to the search warrant and the evidence obtained therefrom during trial constitutes a waiver of such objections, precluding their belated interposition on appeal. Furthermore, admissions made in counter-affidavits, executed with the assistance of counsel, are binding and can sustain a conviction even if later recanted, provided the recantation is not credible.