FACTS:

Sundaram Magayon y Francisco was convicted for violation of Section 11, Article II of Republic Act 9165 (RA 9165) or the Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002. He was found in possession of 276.9662 grams of dried marijuana fruiting tops and 104.3403 grams of marijuana stalks. Various witnesses testified for the prosecution, including police officers and barangay officials present during the arrest and search of appellant's residence. Appellant and his wife were also present during the search, which yielded small packets of marijuana. The seized items were subsequently inventoried, brought to the police station, and delivered to the crime laboratory for examination.

The case involves a buy-bust operation conducted by the police against the appellant for allegedly selling marijuana. A barangay kagawad and two media personnel were present during the operation. The Forensic Chemist received three laboratory requests related to the buy-bust operation and subsequent search of the appellant's premises. The seized items tested positive for marijuana, and the prosecution presented various pieces of evidence to establish their case.

The appellant and his girlfriend were arrested during a search conducted based on a search warrant. Appellant claimed that he went to his girlfriend's house to ask for money when the police arrived. Marijuana was found in his girlfriend's bag, and a hundred-peso bill was found in her wallet. Appellant was forced to sign a document and answer questions at the police station in the presence of his girlfriend and the arresting officers. In court, he maintained his innocence but admitted that the marijuana found in the photographs was taken from the place of his arrest.

Sundaram Magayon was convicted for the illegal possession of drugs. The trial court relied on several circumstances to support the conviction, including civilian witnesses present during the search, adherence to the rules on the service of a search warrant, and the drugs being found in his house. During the trial, Magayon admitted ownership of the house where the drugs were found and claimed they belonged to his former wife. The trial court found that all the elements of the offense were proven, resulting in Magayon's conviction.

ISSUES:

1. Whether the search warrant was valid and the items seized during the search were admissible in evidence.

2. Whether the prosecution proved that the appellant was the owner of the searched premises or exercised control over the place.

3. Whether there was compliance with the chain of custody requirements.

4. Was the search conducted on the store valid?

5. Was appellant's guilt for violation of Section 11, Article II of RA 9165 (illegal possession of dangerous drugs) proved beyond a reasonable doubt?

6. Whether the search of the accused's residence was done in his presence.

7. Whether the accused had dominion and control over the place of subject of the search.

8. Whether the accused's admissions in his counter-affidavit can be used against him.

9. Whether the appellant's admissions in his counter-affidavits are binding on him despite his attempt to retract them in court.

10. Whether the chain of custody of the seized drugs was properly established.

11. Whether the counter-affidavit of the appellant, which admitted ownership and possession of the drugs confiscated, should be given more weight than his subsequent recantation.

12. Whether the existence of a large amount of confiscated drugs and the appellant's own admission go against the possibility of planting or substitution by the police.

RULING:

1. The Court of Appeals held that the appellant did not raise any objection to the search warrant before the trial court, nor did he move to quash it. Therefore, he cannot raise objections against the validity of the search warrant for the first time on appeal. The Court also noted that the search warrant clearly stated that the place to be searched included the store that formed part of the house.

2. The Court of Appeals agreed with the prosecution's argument that the appellant had constructive possession of the premises since he shared it with his girlfriend or "wife." The fact that the appellant did not own the premises or exercise control over it does not negate his possession of the prohibited drugs found inside.

3. The Court of Appeals held that there was compliance with the chain of custody requirements. It found that the seized items were marked and inventoried at the place where the appellant was arrested. While there may have been some irregularities in the Certificate of Inventory, the Court considered them as mere inconsistencies that do not affect the admissibility of the evidence.

4. a). Appellant's failure to object to the search warrant and the evidence adduced below precludes him from belatedly interposing his objections in the present proceedings. Appellant's objections were belatedly raised on appeal and, thus, are deemed waived.

5. b). The search warrant described the place to be searched with sufficient particularity as required by the Constitution. The search warrant sufficiently identified and described the place to be searched, and the courts found that the store was part of the "rented residence" indicated in the search warrant.

6. c). The police officers fully complied with the Rules on the conduct of a valid search. There were at least two witnesses present during the search, including appellant himself as testified by the prosecution witnesses.

7. The search of the accused's residence was done in his presence. The accused himself testified that he was present during the search and witnessed the recovery of the prohibited items. His claim that the search was not done in his presence was contradicted by his own testimony.

8. The accused had dominion and control over the place of the search. Although the accused's girlfriend rented the place, it was clearly stated in his own counter-affidavits that he resided in that address and lived with his girlfriend. He cannot now disclaim his control and dominion over the place where the contraband was found.

9. The accused's admissions in his counter-affidavit can be used against him. The accused freely and knowingly took full responsibility for the seized drugs in his counter-affidavits. Extrajudicial confessions are admissible in evidence as long as they are voluntary, made with the assistance of counsel, express, and in writing.

10. Yes, the appellant's admissions in his counter-affidavits are binding on him. The Court of Appeals correctly considered his admissions as extrajudicial admissions. Although the appellant later tried to retract his statements in court, his belated attempt to diffuse his past damaging admissions must fail. Recantations do not necessarily cancel out an earlier declaration, and its credibility must be tested during trial. Appellant's admissions in his counter-affidavits, which were knowingly and voluntarily made with the assistance of his counsel, can stand on their own to support a verdict of conviction.

11. Yes, the chain of custody of the seized drugs was properly established. The testimonies of the police officer and the forensic chemist sufficiently established every link in the chain of custody from the moment the drugs were seized up until their presentation in court as evidence. The prosecution was able to account for each link of the chain of custody, assuring the integrity and evidentiary value of the seized drugs. Contrary to the appellant's claim, the police officer's testimony focusing on the preparation of the inventory and the documents did not mean he was not present during the search. Appellant himself admitted that the seized drugs were marked and inventoried at the time and place of the search.

12. The counter-affidavit of the appellant, which admitted ownership and possession of the drugs confiscated, should be given more weight than his subsequent recantation. The trial court and the Court of Appeals were correct in considering the admission as an unequivocal statement of ownership and possession. The appellant cannot be allowed to change his narrative to confuse the courts.

13. The existence of a large amount of confiscated drugs and the appellant's own admission go against the possibility of planting or substitution by the police. The appellant's mere denial and inconsistent statements cannot overcome the positive testimonies of the prosecution witnesses, especially when there is shown to be no ulterior motive to falsely testify against him.

PRINCIPLES:

• Objections against the validity of a search warrant must be raised before the trial court, failure to do so bars the appellant from raising such objections on appeal.

• Possession of prohibited drugs may be actual or constructive, and even if the appellant does not own or exercise control over the premises, he can still be found guilty of illegal possession.

• Compliance with the chain of custody requirements includes marking and inventorying the seized items at the place of arrest and showing the testimony of every link in the chain from the moment the drugs are confiscated until they are offered in evidence. Inconsistencies or irregularities in the chain of custody may affect the weight of the evidence but do not necessarily render it inadmissible.

• Objections to the search warrant and the admissibility of evidence must be raised during trial; failure to do so constitutes a waiver.

• A search warrant must describe the place to be searched with sufficient particularity, but it is sufficient if the officer with the warrant can ascertain and identify the place intended.

• A valid search should be conducted in the presence of the lawful occupant, a member of his family, or two witnesses residing in the same locality.

• Actual possession and constructive possession can establish illegal possession of dangerous drugs.

• Exclusive possession or control is not necessary for conviction, as long as the accused shares control and dominion over the place where the drugs are found.

• Admissions in open court are judicial admissions and bind the parties making them.

• Extrajudicial admissions can stand on their own to support a verdict of conviction even if the declarant later attempts to retract them in court.

• Recantations do not necessarily cancel out an earlier declaration, and their credibility must be tested during trial.

• The chain of custody rule in drug cases requires that each link of the chain of custody be accounted for from the time the drugs are seized up until their presentation in court as evidence.

• The prosecution must establish the identity and integrity of the seized drugs with moral certainty by complying with the statutorily mandated procedure in handling the drugs.

• Admissions made by a party are binding on him and are the strongest form of evidence against him.

• Courts give more weight to admissions made by a party voluntarily and knowingly with the assistance of counsel.

• The existence of a large amount of confiscated drugs and the accused's own admission may negate the possibility of planting or substitution by the police.

• Mere denial and inconsistent statements of the accused cannot overcome positive testimonies of prosecution witnesses.