This appeal assails the Decision dated January 26, 2018^[1] of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CR-HC No. 01411-MIN affirming the trial court's verdict of conviction against appellant Sundaram Magayon y Francisco for violation of Section 11, Article II of Republic Act 9165 (RA 9165) or the Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002.

The Proceedings before the Trial Court

The prosecution filed two (2) separate Informations against appellant for violation of Sections 5 and 11 of RA 9165, docketed as Crim. Case 10738 and 10739. Since appellant was already acquitted in Criminal Case 10738, this Decision will only focus on Crim. Case 10739. The Information reads:

That on or about the evening of August 3, 2004 at 6^th Street, Guingona Subdivision, Barangay 25, JP Rizal, Butuan City, Philippines and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the above-named accused, without authority of law, did then and there willfully, unlawfully and feloniously have in his possession, control and custody two hundred seventy six point nine six six two (276.9662) grams of dried marijuana fruiting tops and one bundle of marijuana stalks weighing one hundred four point three four zero three (104.3403) grams, which is a dangerous drug.

CONTRARY TO LAW: (Violation of Sec. 11, Art. II, of RA No. 9165).^[2]

On arraignment, appellant pleaded not guilty.^[3]

During the trial, PO2 Rey Gabrielle Busa Maderal (PO2 Maderal),^[4] Barangay Kagawad Carmelita Torres Mangasep (Barangay Kagawad Mangasep), and Police Senior Inspector (PSI) Norman Gales Jovita (PSI Jovita) testified for the prosecution.^[5] On the other hand, Richard Bentoso Amado (Amado) and appellant himself testified for the defense.^[6]

Version of the Prosecution

PO2 Maderal testified that on August 3, 2004, about 6 o' clock in the evening, he, SPO4 Inocencio Amora (SPO4 Amora), PO3 Estelito Gono (PO3 Gono), PO2 Jaime delos Santos (PO2 delos Santos) and several other police officers conducted a buy-bust operation on appellant residence on 6^th Street, Guingona Subdivision, Barangay 25, Jose P. Rizal, Butuan City.

PO2 delos Santos accompanied the confidential asset to the store which formed part of appellant's house. He (PO2 Maderal) stood near the store where he could clearly see the asset and PO2 delos Santos. When he saw the asset exchange the one hundred peso (P100.00) marked money with a teabag-sized packet of alleged marijuana from appellant, he and his companions closed in and arrested appellant.

The poseur-buyer handed the packet of marijuana to PO2 delos Santos who, in turn, gave it to him (PO2 Maderal) for safekeeping. He recovered the marked money from appellant's "wife"^[7] who received it from appellant right after the transaction. He and the other police officers informed appellant he was being arrested for illegally selling marijuana.^[8]

SPO4 Amora informed appellant of the search warrant they had on his premises.^[9] They waited for barangay officials and media personnel to arrive before they commenced the search.^[10] Appellant and his "wife," too, were present during the search. The search yielded seventy-four (74) small packets^[11] of marijuana in different parts of the house including the store. Inside appellant's room, they found a plastic bag of marijuana and marijuana inside a yellow plastic ice cream container.

In the presence of the barangay officials and the appellant, he prepared the inventory of the seized items. He further identified the pictures taken during the search including those of the seized items.^[12]

He also prepared the certificate of orderly search which the witnesses from the barangay and the media signed. But since appellant refused to sign the certificate, the words "not willing to sign" were written on the space provided for appellant's signature. Thereafter, appellant, his "wife," and the seized items were brought to the police station for booking and investigation. He kept custody of the items.^[13]

At the police station, he and the other arresting officers prepared the booking, indorsement to the PNP Crime Laboratory of the items, return on the search warrant, and affidavit of apprehension.^[14]

He was among those who signed the affidavit of apprehension. He identified his and his companions' signatures thereon. The seized items were surrendered to the court which issued the search warrant. Subsequently, with leave of court, the items were submitted to the crime laboratory for chemical examination. He himself delivered the items to the crime laboratory on the same day. He affirmed that the items he delivered were the same items recovered from appellant.^[15]

On cross, he testified that SPO4 Amora, PO2 delos Santos and the police asset applied for a search warrant around 11 o' clock in the morning of August 3, 2004 after they did a test buy earlier that day. During the buy-bust, the police operatives were already accompanied by some barangay kagawads. They started the search of the premises only after the other barangay officials had arrived, together with the staff of DXBC and ABS-CBN.^[16] In response to the trial court's clarificatory questions, PO2 Maderal averred that he clearly saw the exchange of illegal drugs and money between appellant and the poseur-buyer as he observing them from just beside the store.^[17]

Barangay Kagawad Mangasep testified that in the afternoon of August 3, 2004, a police officer, whose name she could no longer recall, came to her house and requested her to witness a raid that he and his companions were about to conduct.^[18] When she arrived at the place, Kagawad Sisora, other police officers, and media personnel were already there. Only then did the search begin.^[19]

After the search and seizure had ended, the police officers gathered and inventoried all the things they found and seized. Photographs of the seized items were taken before the same were brought to the police station.

Barangay Kagawad Mangasep signed an inventory and certification. She also identified her signature and those of her fellow barangay kagawad and the media personnel.^[20] On cross, she admitted she was not present during the buy-bust operation.^[21] During the search, she, Kagawad Manuel Sisora (Kagawad Sisora), two (2) media personnel, some police officers, appellant and his "live-in partner" were present.^[22]

Forensic Chemist PSI Jovita testified that he received three (3) laboratory requests from Police Chief Inspector (PCI) Martin Mercado Gamboa (PCI Gamboa) in connection with the buy-bust against appellant and the search of his premises. These requests referred to the: 1) request for examination of one (1) tea bag of purported marijuana recovered during a test buy; 2) request for examination of one (1) tea bag of suspected marijuana subject of a buy-bust operation with marking "RBM-A1-08-03-04" (BUY-BUST); and 3) request for examination of seventy four (74) tea bags/packets of alleged marijuana, marked as "RBM-A1-08-03-04 up to RBM-A19-08-03-04," "RBM-B1-08-03-04 up to RBM-B26-08-03-04," "RBM-C1-08-03-04 up to RBM-C29-08-03-04," and a plastic bag and a plastic ice cream container also containing suspected marijuana. These items came from the search done on the premises.^[23] He immediately marked the items, as follows:

He weighed and tested the specimens and found them positive for marijuana. He recorded his findings in three (3) separate chemistry reports,^[24] which he identified in open court. He brought all the items when he testified in court. When asked by the prosecutor what assurance he could give the court pertaining to the identity and integrity of these items, he replied that the items bore his markings which he personally inscribed as soon as he received them.^[25]

After the prosecution witnesses had completed their testimony, the prosecution offered in evidence: 1) Search Warrant No. 416-2004 dated August 3, 2004; 2) Return on the search warrant; 3) Joint Affidavit of Apprehension; 4) Certificate of Inventory; 5) Certification stating that the raid conducted pursuant to the search warrant was done in a proper and orderly manner; 6) photocopy of the P100.00 marked money; 7) request for laboratory examination of one (1) packet/teabag of suspected marijuana; 8) photocopy of the police blotter entry on the buy-bust operation/raid conducted; 9) Chemistry Report No. D-126-2004 on one (1) plastic bag of marijuana fruiting tops weighing 6.3253 grams; 10) Chemistry Report No. D-127-2004 on the seventy four (74) packets, one (1) cellophane bag, and one (1) plastic ice cream container of marijuana which were recovered during the search; 11) a piece of coupon bond containing three (3) photographs of the marked money and the packet of suspected illegal drugs taken from a room; 12) a piece of coupon bond containing three (3) photographs of the plastic packets of marijuana; 13) a piece of coupon bond containing two (2) photographs: one showing appellant's mug shot and another showing the house and store subject of the raid; 14) a piece of coupon bond containing three (3) photographs of the seized items and inventory; 15) request for laboratory examination of the suspected marijuana; 16) request for withdrawal of the seized items from the court for laboratory examination; 17) cellophane pack containing 6.3253 grams of marijuana subject of the buy-bust; 18) cellophane bag containing the seventy four (74) packets of marijuana and the rest of the items subject of the search;^[26] 19) appellant's Counter-Affidavit dated February 2, 2005;^[27] and 20) appellant's Counter-Affidavit dated August 14, 2004.^[28]

Version of the Defense

Amado testified that on August 3, 2004, he went to Purok 7, Barangay Obrero, Butuan to take his lunch. A festivity was ongoing there.

Appellant's sister-in-law is Amado's cousin. Hence, he knew appellant because they had already met before. That day, they had a drinking session in the house of Amado's cousin. Around 2 o' clock in the afternoon, appellant asked him to accompany appellant in going to the rented house of the appellant's girlfriend on 6^th Street, Guingona Subdivision.

Amado and appellant reached the place around 3 o'clock in the afternoon. The house had a store. It was the first time he met appellant's girlfriend. He only knew her as "Che-che." Appellant went inside the store where his girlfriend was while Amado stayed outside about five (5) meters away.

After appellant and his girlfriend briefly talked, Amado asked appellant if he could use the toilet inside Che-che's rented house. But appellant told him the owner of the house would not allow it. Appellant instead asked him to use the toilet in the house of appellant's sister around thirty (30) meters away.

Amado left the house of Che-che and proceeded to the house of appellant's sister. After relieving himself, he returned to the store. There, he was surprised to see people setting up a cordon around the place. A person went inside the store. Later, appellant, who was already handcuffed, and his girlfriend were brought outside. The police did a search inside the store. Appellant and his girlfriend were boarded into the patrol car.^[29]

Appellant testified that on August 3, 2004, he visited his brother at the latter's residence in Barangay Obrero, Butuan City. While he and his brother were drinking, Amado arrived and joined them. Sometime after, he asked Amado to go with him to the rented house of his girlfriend in Guingona Subdivision. His girlfriend's rented house was attached to a store. He decided to see his girlfriend to ask for money to buy additional bottles of "Tanduay" for himself and his companions. They headed to his girlfriend's house on board Amado's motorcycle and got there in ten (10) minutes.^[30]

He went inside the store and asked his girlfriend for a bottle of "Tanduay." Meanwhile, someone also came to buy a "Sprite." Then they heard three (3) knocks on the door. It was a man holding a folder. The man showed him the folder on which the words "search warrant" were written. He was surprised to see his name on the "search warrant."

The man, together with three (3) others, searched the store. They recovered marijuana from his girlfriend's bag and a one hundred peso (P100.00) bill from his girlfriend's wallet. They compared the bill with a photocopy they had at that time. They laid the items on the table, wrote on a piece of paper "Certificate of Inventory," and listed all the items they were able to recover. They made him sign a document. They later called for Barangay Kagawad Mangasep who was also made to sign a document. They gathered all the items on the table and brought him to the police station.^[31]

There, a media person arrived and he was forced to answer questions in the presence of his girlfriend and the men who had arrested him. One (1) of the questions was whether he owned the seized items. He did not answer. Someone advised him to secure the services of a lawyer. Another advised him to admit his ownership of the items so that he and his girlfriend would be set free. Two (2) men also advised him not to admit to anything. Since he was so confused, he said he would consult a lawyer first.^[32]

On cross, he stated that Syntyche Litera ("Cheche") had only been his girlfriend for about a month when the buy-bust and search happened. Cheche was previously married to Noel Lanciola. It was Cheche who rented the place where the raid took place. As far as he knew, Cheche was the only one who resided there.

Appellant admitted he had executed two (2) counter-affidavits with assistance of his counsel de parte, Atty. Nelbert Poculan (Atty. Poculan).^[33] In his first Counter-Affidavit dated August 14, 2004, he stated:

I, SUNDARAM MAGAYON y Francisco, 31 years old, single and a resident of 6^th St., Guingona Subd., Butuan City, after having been sworn to in accordance with law, do hereby depose and say THAT:

I am the same Sundaram F. Magayon, who is one of the respondents in the complaint filed by SPO4 Inocencio T. Amora for [violation] of Sec. 11[,] Art. II of RA 9165, for the search and seizure of several sachets of marijuana leaves that occurred on Aug. 3, 2004 at around ^[6] o' clock in the evening at 6^th St., Guingona Subd.;

My [live-in] partner, Syntyche Litera y Lumacang, alias Cheche, has nothing to do with the activities that transpired in our residence;

The marked money that was found in her possession came from me because I handed it to her because I was about to take a bath;

That these marijuana leaves were left at my residence. I was about to report it to the authorities but the policemen must have heard of it because they raid[ed] my residence on August 3, 2004.

I am executing this affidavit for leniency from the authorities and that I be allowed to apply for the benefits of the Probation Law. Further, Syntyche should be absolved of any criminal liability since she is completely innocent thereof.

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I hereunto affix my signature this 14^th day of August, 2004 in Butuan City, Philippines.^[34]

In his second Counter-Affidavit dated February 2, 2005, he averred:

I, SUNDARAM MAGAYON, of legal age, single and a resident of 6^th St., Guingona Subd., Purok 4, Brgy. 25, JP Rizal, Butuan City, after having been sworn to in accordance with law, do hereby depose and say THAT:

I am the same person who stands accused before the Regional Trial Court of Agusan del Norte x x x Butuan City, Branch 4 for Violation of Sections 5 & 11, Art. II of RA 9165;

I asked for [a] reinvestigation of said case because the truth of the matter, is that I am not a pusher or [a] peddler of prohibited drugs but only a USER of the same;

It is not true that there was a poseur buyer who bought the illegal drugs, as manifested by the fact that he did not execute an affidavit to corroborate the statement of the police authorities;

The alleged prohibited drugs found in my possession were for my own personal use and not for sale or distribution to buyers;

There was an illegal seizure and search because the search warrant did not specifically mentioned what items were to be searched from my residence, nor did it specifically contain the right address;

I am executing this affidavit to state that I am only a USER of the prohibited drugs and not a pusher thereof, and that I be admitted to a rehabilitation center.

I know the legal consequences in executing this affidavit.

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I hereunto [affix] my signature this 2^nd day of February, 2005 in Butuan City, Philippines.^[35]

In open court, appellant stressed that he was not a pusher but only a user.^[36] He claimed that the paragraph pertaining to his drug use was the only statement that was true in his second affidavit while the rest was someone else's idea.^[37] He nonetheless admitted that the packets of marijuana shown in the photographs were taken from the place where he got arrested and the items were likewise marked and inventoried there.^[38] On the stand, he asserted that it was Cheche's former husband who left the drugs in her house. Atty. Poculan did not force him to execute his affidavits.^[39] Although there were false statements in the counter-affidavits, he did not blame Atty. Poculan for them.^[40]

The Trial Court's Decision

By its Omnibus Decision^[41] dated March 13, 2015, the trial court rendered a verdict of conviction against appellant for illegal possession of drugs under Section 11, Article II of RA 9165. It relied heavily on the following circumstances: (a) civilian witnesses accompanied the police officers during the search, (b) the inventory of the seized items was signed by appellant and the civilian witnesses; (c) the apprehending officers followed the rules on service of a search warrant and submitted a return thereon together with the request for withdrawal of items for laboratory examination; and (d) as possession may be actual or constructive, it was enough that "the prohibited items were found in [appellant's house], despite his protestation that the store was [only] leased by his girlfriend."^[42] In sum, the trial court found that the prosecution was able to prove all the elements of the offense charged. The trial court disposed, thus:

WHEREFORE, premises considered, the Court finds accused Sundaram Magayon y Francisco guilty beyond reasonable doubt in Criminal Case No. 10739 for violation of Section 11, of Article II of Republic Act 9165 (Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002), and considering that the weight of the prohibited drug is three hundred eighty-one point three zero six five (381.3065) grams (par. 2, Section 11, Art. II of Republic Act 9165), accused is hereby sentenced to undergo imprisonment of 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 five hundred thousand pesos (P500,000.00) without subsidiary imprisonment in case of insolvency.

Accused shall serve his sentence at the Davao Prison and Penal Farm at Braulio E. Dujali, Davao del Norte and shall be credited [with] his preventive imprisonment conformably with Article 29 of the Revised Penal Code, as amended.

The marijuana are [sic] declared forfeited in favor of the government to be dealt with accordingly.

In Criminal Case No. 10738, for violation of Section 5, Article II of Republic Act 9165, for insufficiency of evidence, accused Sundaram Magayon y Francisco is acquitted of the charge.

SO ORDERED.^[43]

The Proceedings before the Court of Appeals

On appeal, appellant faulted the trial court for rendering the verdict of conviction despite the alleged irregularities in the service of the search warrant, the seizure of the drugs, and the chain of custody. He argued, in the main:

First, the search was not valid and the items seized during the search were inadmissible in evidence against him. For while the search warrant only authorized the police to search the house, they also searched the store. Considering that an earlier test buy was conducted by the police officers, they should have been already familiar with the place to be searched; hence, they should have included the store in their application for the search warrant. Their failure to do so violated Section 2, Article III of the Constitution which requires the search warrant to describe with particularity the place to be searched.^[44] More, he did not witness the search as required under Section 8, Rule 126 of the Rules of Criminal Procedure.^[45]

Second, the prosecution failed to prove that he was the owner of the searched premises or that he exercised control over the place.

Third, the arresting officers failed to comply with the chain of custody requirements. There was allegedly no immediate marking of the seized items nor any showing that appellant witnessed the marking. The Certificate of Inventory lumped all the items together without any segregation vis-a-vis the specific place or places where the specimens were recovered. The Certificate of Inventory was also allegedly irregular because it did not bear the name and signature of PO2 Maderal. It was not PO2 Maderal who identified the seized items in court but the forensic chemist. The chain of custody should include testimony on every link in the chain from the moment the prohibited drugs were confiscated until they were offered in evidence.

On the other hand, the Office of the Solicitor General (OSG) through Assistant Solicitor General Rex Bernardo L. Pascual and Associate Solicitor Christian P. Castro, countered: (a) the search warrant clearly stated that the place to be searched was appellant's "rented residence and its premises located on 6^th Street, Guingona Subdivision, Barangay 25, Jose P. Rizal, Butuan City" which necessarily included the store that formed part of the house; (b) the prosecution witnesses categorically testified that appellant and his "wife" were present during the search; (c) appellant cannot evade the verdict of conviction since he had constructive possession of the premises which he shared with his girlfriend or his "wife;" (d) appellant already admitted that the marijuana packets were seized from the house subject of the search warrant and any objection to the admissibility of the seized evidence based on non-compliance with Section 21, Article II of the RA 9165 cannot be raised for the first time on appeal; and (e) even assuming there was non-compliance with Section 21, the objection did not impact the admissibility but merely the weight of the evidence, hence, the trial court's factual findings in relation thereto must be respected.

The Court of Appeals affirmed through its assailed Decision^[46] dated January 26, 2018. It held in the main:

First, appellant did not assail the search warrant before the trial court, nor object to its offer in evidence, much less, move to quash the search warrant. Hence, his objections against the search warrant and the admissibility of the seized items should be deemed waived.

Second, the judge correctly found probable cause to issue the search warrant as it was applied for only after an earlier test buy yielded positive results.

Third, the search was done in accordance with the Rules of Court.

Fourth, there was evidence on record that appellant resided with his girlfriend/live-in partner at the address stated in the search warrant.

Fifth, likewise appellant may no longer assail the chain of custody for the first time on appeal.

Sixth, the evidence on record showed that there was no break in the chain of custody and that the integrity of the confiscated items was not compromised.

The Present Appeal

Appellant prays anew for his acquittal.

In compliance with the Resolution dated July 11, 2018,^[47] the OSG^[48] manifested that it was no longer filing a supplemental brief as all matters and issues had already been adequately discussed in its Appellee's Brief before the Court of Appeals.

Appellant, in turn, filed a Supplemental Brief dated December 6, 2018.^[49]

Issues

(1) Was the search conducted on the store valid?

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

Ruling

1(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.

It is a matter of record that appellant never assailed the search warrant and the evidence emanating therefrom before the trial court. As the appellate court correctly observed, appellant's objections were belatedly raised on appeal and, thus, are deemed waived.

In People v. Nuñez, the Court had the opportunity to state that "any objection to the legality of the search warrant and the admissibility of the evidence obtained thereby was deemed waived when no objection was raised by appellant during trial. For sure, the right to be secure from unreasonable searches and seizures, like any other right, can be waived and the waiver may be made expressly or impliedly."^[50] So must it be.

1(b). The  search  warrant  described
the   place   to   be   searched     with
sufficient particularity as required by
the Constitution.

We reckon with Section 2, Article III of the Constitution:

SECTION 2. The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects against unreasonable searches and seizures of whatever nature and for any purpose shall be inviolable, and no search warrant or warrant of arrest shall issue except upon probable cause to be determined personally by the judge after examination under oath or affirmation of the complainant and the witnesses he may produce, and particularly describing the place to be searched and the persons or things to be seized.

Appellant argues that the search warrant did not specifically mention the store to be among the places to be searched thereby violating the proviso that the place or places to be searched must be described with particularity.

The rule is that a description of the place to be searched is sufficient if the officer with the warrant can, with reasonable effort, ascertain and identify the place intended and distinguish it from other places in the community. Any designation or description known to the locality that points out the place to the exclusion of all others, and on inquiry, leads the officers unerringly to it, satisfies the constitutional requirement.^[51] A search warrant is deemed to have described the place to be searched with sufficient particularity when the premises have been identified as being occupied by the accused.^[52]

As aptly found by the courts below, the search warrant here stated that the place to be searched was appellant's "rented residence and its premises located [on] 6^th Street, Guingona Subdivision, Barangay 25, Jose P. Rizal, Butuan City."

The apprehending officers became and were in fact familiar with the place to be searched as a result of the test buy which they had conducted just hours before the search. Further, appellant has not denied that the store formed part of the "rented residence" and was not a separate structure.

PO2 Maderal categorically testified that the store was part of the house and it was an open space on which a curtain hung as a divider.^[53]

We therefore find no cogent reason to disturb the common findings of the courts below that the house and its appurtenant store were found at the same address indicated in the search warrant. Hence, appellant's protestation that the search warrant failed to describe the place to be searched with sufficient particularity must fail.

1(c).  The  police  officers  fully
complied with the Rules on the
conduct of a valid search.

Section 8, Rule 126 ordains:

SECTION 8. Search of House, Room, or Premises to Be Made in Presence of Two Witnesses. — No search of a house, room, or any other premises shall be made except in the presence of the lawful occupant thereof or any member of his family or in the absence of the latter, two witnesses of sufficient age and discretion residing in the same locality.

Although appellant does not dispute the fact that there were at least two (2) witnesses who were present during the search, he asserts that he himself did not witness it. This claim, however, is belied by the categorical testimonies of the prosecution witnesses PO2 Maderal and Barangay Kagawad Mangasep that he and his girlfriend/common law wife were actually present during the search. The Court of Appeals, too, aptly noted that appellant himself testified that he witnessed the search conducted by the police. We quote with approval the Court of Appeals' relevant disquisition:

Also, this Court noted that Magayon was able to give a clear sequence of events when he recounted the search, which strongly bespeaks of his presence while the same was ongoing. Pertinent parts of his testimony states:

ATTY. RULIDA:

So, what happened after the search?

MAGAYON:

After the search, Sir, I noticed that they recovered marijuana from the bag of my girlfriend and a tea bag of marijuana.

Q: After they discovered those items that you mentioned, what happened next?
A: After that, they searched the wallet of my girlfriend.

Q: After searching the wallet of your girlfriend, what happened next?
A: They recovered the P100.00 bill.

Q: After they recovered the P100.00 bill, what did they do to it, if any?
A: After that, they compared the P100.00 bill recovered from the wallet of my girlfriend and the Xerox copy that they have at that time.

Q: After that, what happened, if any?
A: After that, Sir, they placed the items on a table.

The above precise statements of Magayon demonstrate how he actually witnessed the search. He obviously saw how and where the items were recovered thus, negating his claim that the search was not done in his presence.^[54]

The testimony of defense witness Amado that appellant and his girlfriend were outside the house/store when the search was conducted was rejected by both courts below for being devoid of credence. Surely, Amado would not have known better than appellant himself who testified that he and his girlfriend/wife were in fact present during the search, even as Amado went to the toilet to relieve himself some thirty (30) or fifty (50) meters away.

Whether to believe the version of the prosecution or that of the defense, the trial court's factual findings thereon is generally viewed as correct and entitled to the highest respect. For it had the opportunity to observe the witnesses' demeanor and deportment on the witness stand as they gave their testimonies.^[55] More so, where the trial court's factual findings on the credibility of witnesses carry the full concurrence of the Court of Appeals, as in this case. No compelling reason exists here to deviate from this rule.

2(a).  The  evidence  on   record   show
that appellant did  have  dominion  and
control over the place of subject of the
search.

The elements of illegal possession of dangerous drugs under Section 11, Article II of RA 9165 are: (1) possession by the accused of an item or object identified to be a prohibited drug; (2) the possession is not authorized by law; and (3) the free and conscious possession of the drug by the accused.^[56]

Possession under the law includes not only actual possession but also constructive possession. Actual possession exists when the drug is in the immediate physical possession or control of the accused. On the other hand, constructive possession exists when the drug is under the dominion and control of the accused or when he has the right to exercise dominion and control over the place where it is found.

Exclusive possession or control is not necessary. The accused cannot avoid conviction if his control and dominion over the place where the contraband is located were shared with another.^[57]

Appellant nonetheless contends that he could not be guilty of illegal possession of dangerous drugs in view of the prosecution's alleged failure to prove that he owned or controlled the house and the store where the confiscated items were found. Appellant asserts that it was his girlfriend who rented the place subject of the search and she lived there alone.

The Court of Appeals correctly rejected this argument. For it was plainly stated in appellant's own counter-affidavits that he resided in the address specified in the search warrant and where the search was actually conducted. Specifically, in his Counter-Affidavit dated August 14, 2004, he stated that he and Cheche were live-in partners. Although, on the witness stand, appellant subsequently disavowed certain portions of his counter-affidavits, the recanted statements did not include appellant's address nor the fact that he and Cheche were living together. Appellant is now estopped from claiming otherwise. He is bound by the admissions in his sworn statements duly identified and marked in court. An admission in open court is a judicial admission.^[58] In fine, appellant cannot disclaim his control and dominion over the place subject of the search where subject drugs were found.

2(b).       Appellant's         inculpatory
admissions sustain his conviction and
Section 21, Article II of RA 9165 will
not come into play.

Records indubitably show that appellant had frankly admitted his possession of the enormous amount of prohibited drugs which found in and seized from his residence.

To recall, appellant testified that during the investigation at the police station he refrained from answering the police officers' questions and told them he wished to consult with a lawyer first.

Appellant, thereafter, secured the services of counsel de parte, Atty. Poculan. With the able assistance of Atty. Poculan, he executed and submitted his counter-affidavits to the Office of the City Prosecutor.

In his Counter-Affidavit dated February 2, 2005,^[59] he stated that "the alleged prohibited drugs found in [his] possession were for [his] personal use and not for sale or distribution to buyers." Too, in his earlier Counter-Affidavit dated August 14, 2004,^[60] appellant tried to absolve his girlfriend from any liability, as he stated, "[his] live in partner, Syntyche Litera y Lumacang alias [Che-che], had nothing to do with the activities that transpired in [their] residence" and "[t]he marked money that was found in her possession came from [him] because [he] handed it to her because [he] was about to take a bath."

Clearly, appellant knowingly took full responsibility for the seized drugs in his counter-affidavits.

Extrajudicial confessions are admissible in evidence, provided they are: 1) voluntary; 2) made with the assistance of a competent and independent counsel; 3) express; and 4) in writing.^[61] Here, appellant's admissions in his counter-affidavits are binding on him as they were knowingly and voluntarily made with assistance of his counsel of choice, Atty. Poculan.

Although appellant later on tried to retract the foregoing statements in court, claiming it was not true that Cheche was blameless and it was in fact her former husband who owned the seized marijuana, his belated attempt to diffuse his past damaging admissions must fail. For courts may believe one part of the testimony of a witness and disbelieve another part. Courts are not required to accept or reject the whole of the testimony of a particular witness.^[62] While case law holds that recantations do not necessarily cancel out an earlier declaration, ultimately, it should still be treated like any other testimony and as such, its credibility must be tested during trial.^[63]

On this score, the Court of Appeals correctly took into account that appellant was not an unlettered person but was a third year college student majoring in Elementary Education; hence, he readily understood the statements in his counter-affidavits and could have refused to sign them if they were untrue. He did not charge his lawyer with incompetence, neglect or impropriety. He did not adduce evidence of coercion or intimidation from anyone. These counter-affidavits were notarized, the first, by appellant's own counsel, and the second, by the city prosecutor. It cannot be gainsaid then that appellant's extrajudicial admissions can stand on their own to support a verdict of conviction.

In Regalado v. People,^[64] Regalado admitted that he possessed the seized marijuana but contended that the apprehending officers did not fully comply with Section 21, Article II of RA 9165. The Court held that Regalado's damning admission warranted the affirmance of his conviction, albeit we sternly reminded police officers to be mindful of their duty to comply with the statutorily mandated procedure in drugs cases, lest their lapses become fatal to the prosecution's cause.

Here, appellant already admitted several times his possession of a large quantity of marijuana and did not pose substantial objections to the identity and integrity of the drugs confiscated at the place of his arrest. The case records flatly contradicted his objections to the chain of custody of the seized drugs in question.

Section 21, Article II of RA 9165 on the chain of custody rule outlines the procedure that police officers must follow in handling the seized drugs in order to ensure the preservation of their integrity and evidentiary value.^[65] To establish the identity of the dangerous drug with moral certainty, the prosecution must be able to account for each link of the chain of custody from the moment the drugs are seized up to their presentation in court as evidence of the crime.^[66]

Here, the testimonies of PO2 Maderal and the forensic chemist sufficiently established every link in the chain of custody from the time the prohibited drugs were seized and inventoried right after the search at the place of the search, to the time they were brought to the police station for the booking, investigation, and forensic analysis, up until the prohibited drugs were presented in court.

Contrary to appellant's claim, the fact that PO2 Maderal's testimony focused on his preparation of the inventory and the documents relative to the investigation did not mean he was not present during the search. In fact, his testimony was replete with details which could have only been known by one who was personally present during the search.

On the marking of the seized items, appellant himself admitted that the seized drugs were marked and inventoried at the time and place of the search. Surely, he could not have made such a confirmation if the marking and inventory had not been made in his presence as required by Section 21.

Further, there is no law or rule requiring that the inventory should segregate the seized items according to the specific place in the house or store where they were found. The law simply and solely mandates that an inventory of all the seized items be made by the apprehending officer/team. Notably, appellant himself admitted in court that the items subject of the inventory as photographed by the police officers were indeed recovered from the place where the search and arrest were made.

In sum, appellant admitted the identity and integrity of the drugs seized from his residence and those presented in court, although appellant did not specify the exact quantity or amount of drugs. In his Counter-Affidavit dated August 14, 2004, he categorically admitted that the police found the prohibited drugs in his residence, thus:

x x x x

That these marijuana leaves were left at my residence. I was about to report it to the authorities but the policeman must have heard of it because they raid my residence on August 3, 2004.

x x x x

Five (5) months later, he admitted the prohibited drugs were found in his possession and for his personal use in his second Counter-Affidavit dated February 2, 2005, viz.:

x x x x

The alleged prohibited drugs found in my possession were for my own personal use and not for sale or distribution to buyers;

x x x x

I am executing this affidavit to state that I am only a USER of the prohibited drugs and not a pusher thereof, and that I be admitted to a rehabilitation center.

I know the legal consequences in executing this affidavit. (Emphasis added)

As shown, appellant categorically stated that he knew the consequences of his admissions. He was even assisted by counsel when affixed his signature on his counter-affidavit. As the final nail in the coffin, appellant even stressed in open court that he was not a pusher but only a user.^[67] These admissions are already sufficient to establish that he indeed illegally possessed the prohibited drugs. His belated, nay, self-serving claim that the drugs confiscated by the police belonged to another must, therefore fail. They cannot prevail over his prior categorical admissions which he voluntarily and knowingly made with assistance of counsel.

It is immaterial that appellant's counter-affidavit did not specify the amount of drugs found in his possession. This does not negate the applicability of Regalado. A plain reading of his second counter-affidavit readily shows that he admitted to owning all 381.3065 grams of marijuana recovered during the search. Notably, when he executed his second counter-affidavit on February 2, 2005, about six (6) months after he got arrested, he already knew by then that he was being charged with illegal possession of 381.3065 grams of marijuana. Yet he still admitted ownership thereof without qualification as to its quantity.

Thus, the trial court and the Court of Appeals cannot be faulted for construing the counter-affidavit as an admission of ownership and possession of the entire amount recovered. There was no piecemeal admission here. It was either appellant owned the entire quantity or none at all. As it was, the trial court and the Court of Appeals, in their final evaluation of the evidence before them, found that between appellant's admission, on the one hand, and his recantation, on the other, the former is more deserving of weight and credit.

There exists no cogent reason to depart from these factual findings of the courts below. At any rate, appellant ought not to be allowed to swing from one version of facts to another. The Court should not condone his act of foisting different narratives to muddle the facts case and confuse the courts.

Suffice it to state that the large amount of the confiscated drugs involved here and appellant's own inculpatory judicial admissions go against the possibility of planting or substitution by the police. Neither could appellant's mere denial and inconsistent statements overcome the positive testimonies of the prosecution witnesses.^[68] This is especially true when there were shown not to have any ulterior motive to falsely testify against him in such grave offense of illegal possession of prohibited drugs.

ACCORDINGLY, the appeal is DENIED, and the Decision dated January 26, 2018 in CA-G.R. CR-HC No. 01411-MIN, AFFIRMED.

Sundaram Magayon y Francisco is found GUILTY of illegal possession of drugs under Section 11, Article II of RA 9165 and sentenced to indeterminate penalty of twenty (20) years and one (1) day as minimum to thirty (30) years as maximum and to pay a fine of five hundred thousand pesos (P500,000.00) without subsidiary imprisonment in case of insolvency.

SO ORDERED.

^[2] Record, p. 1.

^[3] Id. at 26.

^[4] In some parts of the record, this witness is sometimes referred to as PO3 Maderal.

^[5] Rollo, p. 4.

^[6] Id. at 8.

^[7] The witnesses for the prosecution referred to this person as appellant's wife but appellant claimed that she was only his girlfriend.

^[8] TSN dated August 10, 2006, pp. 5-6.

^[9] Id. at 9-10.

^[10] Id. at 11.

^[11] Nineteen (19) packets of marijuana were found in a black bag and a cellophane bag, another twenty-six (26) and twenty-nine (29) packets were found in the store and a room, all inside appellant's house id. at 13-14.

^[12] Id. at 14-20.

^[13] P100 peso marked money, a total of seventy-four (74) small packets of marijuana, a plastic bag of dried marijuana stalks, and dried crushed marijuana leaves in a yellow plastic ice cream container.

^[14] TSN dated August 10, 2006, pp. 21-22.

^[15] Id. at 21-27.

^[16] TSN dated January 11, 2007, pp. 3-5.

^[17] Id. at 89-10.

^[18] TSN dated June 18, 2007, p. 3.

^[19] Id. at 9.

^[20] Id. at 4-6.

^[21] Id. at 7.

^[22] Id. at 9.

^[23] TSN dated April 28, 2008, p. 7; see also request for examination (Exhibit O) and Chemistry Report No. D-127-2004 in the Exhibits Folder.

^[24] Although all three (3) chemistry reports are on record, the prosecution only formally offered two (2) of them as will be discussed further below.

^[25] TSN dated April 28, 2008, pp. 8-19.

^[26] CA rollo, pp. 62-63.

^[27] This was marked and verbally offered in the course of appellant's cross-examination, id. at 25.

^[28] Id. at 26.

^[29] TSN dated February 20, 2012, pp. 7-11.

^[30] TSN dated January 15, 2015, pp. 3-4.

^[31] Id. at 7-8.

^[32] Id. at 8-10.

^[33] Id. at 13-14, 20-21.

^[34] CA rollo, p. 26.

^[35] CA rollo, p. 25.

^[36] TSN dated January 15, 2015, pp. 10-14.

^[37] Id. at 15.

^[38] Id. at 19-20.

^[39] Id. at 21.

^[40] Id. at 21-23.

^[41] Penned by Judge Godofredo B. Abul, Jr., CA rollo, pp. 58-68.

^[42] Id. at 66-67.

^[43] Id. at 67-68.

^[44] Section 2, Article III of the 1987 Constitution provides:

SECTION 2. The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects against unreasonable searches and seizures of whatever nature and for any purpose shall be inviolable, and no search warrant or warrant of arrest shall issue except upon probable cause to be determined personally by the judge after examination under oath or affirmation of the complainant and the witnesses he may produce, and particularly describing the place to be searched and the persons or things to be seized.

^[45] Section 8, Rule 126 of the Rules of Criminal Procedure states:

SECTION 8. Search of House, Room, or Premises to Be Made in Presence of Two Witnesses. — No search of a house, room, or any other premises shall be made except in the presence of the lawful occupant thereof or any member of his family or in the absence of the latter, two witnesses of sufficient age and discretion residing in the same locality.

^[46] Rollo, pp. 3-27.

^[47] Id. at 33-34.

^[48] Id. at 37-39.

^[49] Id. at 43-57.

^[50] 609 Phil. 176, 185 (2009).

^[51] Uy v. Bureau of Internal Revenue, 397 Phil. 892, 907-908 (2000); see also People v. Posada y Sontillano, 768 Phil. 324, 330 (2015).

^[52] See People v. Salanguit, 408 Phil. 817, 833 (2001).

^[53] TSN dated August 10, 2006, p. 13.

^[54] Rollo, p. 20.

^[55] See People v. Alboka, 826 Phil. 487, 498 (2018).

^[56] People v. Obias, Jr., y Arroyo, G.R. No. 222187, March 25, 2019.

^[57] People v. Batoon, 650 Phil. 569, 578 (2010).

^[58] People v. Lacson, 459 Phil. 330, 365 (2003).

^[59] This was identified by appellant and marked as the prosecution's Exhibit R.

^[60] This was also identified by appellant and marked as the prosecution's Exhibit S.

^[61] See People v. Canatoy, G.R. No. 227195, July 29, 2019.

^[62] People v. Bombesa, 245 Phil. 359, 364 (1988).

^[63] Balois-Alberto v. Court of Appeals, 711 Phil. 530, 556-557 (2013).

^[64] G.R. No. 216632, March 13, 2019.

^[65] See People v. Año y Remedios, 828 Phil. 439, 448 (2018).

^[66] People v. Acabo, G.R. No. 241081, February 11, 2019.

^[67] TSN dated January 15, 2015, pp. 10-14.

DISSENTING OPINION

CAGUIOA, J.:

The ponencia denies the appeal of Sundaram Magayon y Francisco (Sundaram) for the crime of illegal possession of dangerous drugs, punishable under Section 11 of Republic Act (R.A.) No. 9165. The denial is primarily premised on the statements in Sundaram's Counter-Affidavits, which were considered as a voluntary confession of the crime charged against him.^[1] Furthermore, despite the deviations from the chain of custody rule, the ponencia ruled that the integrity and identity of the seized dangerous drugs were sufficiently established.^[2]

I dissent.

The statements attributed to the appellant in this case do not amount to a confession for the possession of the entire volume of drugs stated in the Information. They are likewise not tantamount to an admission that the apprehending team sufficiently preserved the integrity and identity of the seized drug evidence.

From the records it appears that a buy-bust operation was conducted on August 3, 2004, in front of the residence of Sundaram. After the poseur buyer, PO2 Jaime delos Santos, exchanged his marked P100.00 for a tea-bag sized packet of suspected marijuana from Sundaram, the police officers moved in to arrest the appellant. His common-law wife, Syntyche Litera (Syntyche), was likewise arrested.^[3]

The police officers thereafter informed Sundaram that they had a search warrant covering his residence.^[4] Before proceeding with the search, the police officers waited for the arrival of barangay officials and media representatives to witness the search. The search yielded numerous small sachets of marijuana found inside the house and the adjacent store.^[5] According to the prosecution, PO2 Rey Gabrielle Maderal (PO2 Maderal) marked the seized items with his initials. He also prepared the Certificate of Inventory to document the following items taken during the implementation of the search warrant: (a) a total of 74 tea-bag sized sachets of marijuana; (b) dried crushed leaves of marijuana inside a plastic container; and (c) one (1) white cellophane containing marijuana. The marked money used for the buy-bust operation, together with its serial number, was also recorded in the inventory. The barangay officials and the media personnel from ABS-CBN Butuan and DXBC all signed the Certificate of Inventory, including the appellant.^[6]

When the police officers returned to their office, PO2 Maderal took custody of the confiscated items from the buy-bust and search warrant operations. He prepared several more documents upon their arrival, including the return on the Search Warrant, the Affidavit of Apprehension, and the indorsement to the Philippine National Police (PNP) Crime Laboratory.^[7]

Thereafter, PO2 Maderal delivered the request and the specimen to the PNP Crime Laboratory.^[8] The examination of the drug evidence yielded a positive result for marijuana, a dangerous drug.^[9]

Sundaram was charged in two (2) separate Informations for the illegal sale and illegal possession of dangerous drugs, in violation of Sections 5 and 11, Article II, of R.A. No. 9165, respectively. The trial court acquitted Sundaram of the charge of illegal sale of dangerous drugs for insufficiency of evidence, there being no markings or inventory on the packet of marijuana supposedly taken pursuant to the buy-bust operation. However, Sundaram was found guilty for the charge of illegal possession of 381.3065 grams of marijuana.^[10]

The Court of Appeals (CA) affirmed the trial court's decision, which constrained Sundaram to file the present appeal before the Court.

I.

In the Decision, the ponencia affirmed the conviction of Sundaram on the basis of his supposed confession in his counter-affidavits during the preliminary investigation. In particular, the following statements in Sundaram's August 14, 2004 Counter-Affidavit were deemed relevant:

I, SUNDARAM MAGAYON y Francisco, 31 years old, single and a resident of 6^th St., Guingona Subd., Butuan City, after having been sworn to in accordance with law, do hereby depose and say THAT:

x x x x

My live[-]in partner, [Syntyche], alias Cheche, has nothing to do with the activities that transpired in our residence;

The marked money that was found in her possession came from me because I handed it to her because I was about to take a bath[.]^[11]

The following statement in his February 2, 2005 Counter-Affidavit was likewise considered as a voluntary confession: "[t]he alleged prohibited drugs found in my possession were for my personal use and not for sale or distribution to buyers."^[12] For the ponencia, these were sufficient to support a verdict of conviction as Sundaram "knowingly took full responsibility for the seized drugs."^[13]

In my view, however, these statements do not constitute a confession of Sundaram's guilt to the charge of illegal possession of 381.3065 grams of marijuana.

Preliminarily, the quoted statements in the August 14, 2004 Counter-Affidavit of Sundaram relate to the marked money that he purportedly received as a result of the buy-bust operation. These statements, therefore, are relevant only as to the charge of illegal sale of dangerous drugs, for which he was already acquitted. Stated simply, they cannot be relied upon to sustain a conviction for possession.

More importantly, the language of Sundaram's sworn statements lacks a categorical acknowledgment of guilt, particularly with respect to his ownership and possession of the entire volume of drugs found in his residence. In this regard, the Court has always made a distinction between a confession and an admission. A confession refers to the express acknowledgment of guilt of the crime charged, while an admission "is an acknowledgment of some facts or circumstances which, in itself, is insufficient to authorize a conviction and which tends only to establish the ultimate facts of guilt."^[14] An admission is deemed less than a confession as it acknowledges only factual circumstances that tend to prove the guilt of the accused when connected with proof of other facts.^[15]

A careful examination of the statements in Sundaram's Counter-Affidavits would reveal that these were mistakenly characterized as a confession. In his August 14, 2004 Counter-Affidavit, Sundaram stated that the marijuana leaves were left in his residence, presumably by someone else, and that he was about to report this to the authorities.^[16] The appellant's passive reference to these drugs indicates an intention to distance himself therefrom. Rather than establishing a categorical admission of ownership on the part of the appellant, there is no discernible awareness in this statement that he freely and consciously possessed them.

Meanwhile, in his February 2, 2005 Counter-Affidavit, Sundaram stated that "[t]he alleged prohibited drugs found in [his] possession"^[17] were only for his own personal use. He also concluded his sworn statement with the admission that he is a drug user but not a seller of prohibited drugs.^[18]

The equivocalness in these statements is readily apparent. Aside from using the word "alleged" to refer to the prohibited drugs, the February 2, 2005 Counter-Affidavit does not specify the drugs involved or the amount purportedly found in his possession. The glaring absence of these details fail to lend credence to the ponencia's ruling that Sundaram "knowingly took full responsibility for the seized drugs."^[19] This holds especially true in this case where Sundaram maintained that his acknowledgement of guilt only refers to his drug use. During his cross-examination, he denied the rest of the statements in his February 2, 2005 Counter-Affidavit, viz.:

[Prosecutor Aljay O. Go]
Q	I'm showing you a Counter-Affidavit of Sundaram Magayon, of legal age, single, and a resident of 6th St., Guingona Subd., Purok 4, Brgy. 25, JP Rizal, Butuan City, subscribed before the City Prosecutor Felixberto L. Guiratan on February 21, 2005, are you referring to this counter-affidavit?
[Sundaram]
A	Yes, Sir, this is the one that I was able to sign.
Q	Is this your signature appearing above the name of Sundaram F. Magayon?
A	Yes, Sir.
Q	For emphasis, it was your lawyer, Atty. Poculan, who prepared this affidavit at that time?
A	Yes, Sir.
x x x x
Q	You mentioned in the second paragraph of your counter-affidavit, to quote:
		"I asked for the reinvestigation of said case because the truth of the matter, is that I am not a pusher or peddler of prohibited drugs but only a USER of the same[.]"
		Do you affirm the truthfulness of this statement?
A	Yes, Sir.
x x x x
Q	You said earlier that you attest [to] the veracity of the rest of your statement in this counter-affidavit, is it not?
A	The one stated in the second paragraph is true.
Q	I'm showing you your Counter-Affidavit and I will give you time to read the matter aside from the fourth paragraph of your statement, which you said, is not correct or true statement Mr. Witness (sic).
		(Witness, at this juncture, is reading his sworn statement)
	So, what are not the correct statements here?
A	The second paragraph of the statement portion is the correct statement, and the rest were not my idea, Sir.[20] (Emphasis in the original)

Sundaram also denied the statements in the August 14, 2004 Counter-Affidavit. In his cross-examination, he testified that he was only made to sign the document:

Q	The first counter-affidavit which I presented to you was executed on February 21, 2005. I'm showing you now another Counter-Affidavit of Sundaram Magayon y Francisco, 31 years old, single and a resident of 6th St., Guingona Subd., Butuan City, please go over this whether you executed this Counter-Affidavit with the assistance of Atty. Nelbert T. Poculan, who apparently notarized this counter-affidavit?
A	I don't have any idea about this counter-affidavit.
Q	By the way, please take a look at the signature of the affiant above the name Sundaram F. Magayon, is it not that this is your signature?
A	Yes, Sir, but I was only made to sign this document.[21]

At most, the statements in Sundaram's Counter-Affidavits should be considered as mere admissions as they are not tantamount to a categorical acknowledgment of guilt.

While Sundaram's admissions may be taken as evidence against him, his statements are not an unequivocal declaration that he possessed "a large quantity of marijuana."^[22] Neither are these an admission that "the seized drugs were marked and inventoried at the time and place of the search."^[23] Since both of his Counter-Affidavits are ambiguous as to the amount of drugs involved, his statements do not contemplate that the drugs presented in court were the same ones taken from him.

For the ponencia, however, the appellant's failure to specify the volume of drugs he possessed should be considered as an unqualified admission for the entire drug evidence. Either the appellant owned the entire quantity or none at all.^[24] This conveniently disregards the fact that according to the prosecution, two (2) operations were conducted prior to the arrest of the appellant: the buy-bust operation and the implementation of the search warrant. In both instances, the prosecution averred that the police officers were able to recover marijuana from the appellant. Without specific details as to the confiscated drugs referred to in the sworn statements of Sundaram, his admission that "[t]he alleged prohibited drugs found in [his] possession were for [his] own personal use and not for sale or distribution"^[25] could easily refer to the drugs recovered from either operation. The ponencia's reliance on this statement to affirm the conviction of the appellant is therefore unwarranted.

It must be emphasized that in cases involving illegal possession of dangerous drugs, the volume of drugs involved is significant to the charge against the accused. The range of the imposable penalty depends on the quantity of drugs — the larger the amount, the more severe the penalty.^[26] By conclusively holding that the identity and integrity of the drug evidence were preserved, the admissions of the appellant were dangerously interpreted beyond their actual meaning. In my view, the Court should exercise prudence and judiciousness in assigning weight to these extrajudicial statements of the appellant.

II.

Even if the ponencia correctly considered the sworn statements as an extrajudicial confession, this only forms a prima facie case against the appellant.^[27] As well, Section 3, Rule 133 of the Rules of Court provides that the extra-judicial confession of an accused shall not be sufficient ground for conviction unless corroborated by evidence of corpus delicti.

The corpus delicti in drugs cases is the confiscated drug itself, and the manner through which its identity is preserved with moral certainty is through compliance with Section 21,^[28] Article II of R.A. No. 9165. This section lays down the chain of custody rule, the primary purpose of which is to ensure that the dangerous drugs presented before the trial court are the same items confiscated from the accused.

The ponencia ruled that the testimonies of the arresting officer and the forensic chemist sufficiently established every link in the chain of custody.^[29] With due respect, I again disagree.

As a mode of authenticating evidence, the Court requires the prosecution to establish the following links in the chain of custody: first, the seizure and marking, if practicable, of the illegal drugs recovered from the accused by the apprehending officer; second, the turnover of the illegal drugs seized by the apprehending officer to the investigating officer; third, the turnover by the investigating officer of the illegal drugs to the forensic chemist for laboratory examination; and fourth, the turnover and submission of the marked illegal drugs seized from the forensic chemist to the court.^[30]

The marking of the drug evidence, as the initial step in the chain of custody, is essential because it is the primary reference point for the succeeding custodians of the confiscated drugs.^[31] The apprehending officers are required to immediately mark the seized items upon their confiscation, or at the "earliest reasonably available opportunity,"^[32] in order to separate the marked items from all other similar or related evidence.

After the marking, the arresting officers must immediately conduct a physical inventory and photograph the seized items in the presence of the following: (a) the accused or the person from whom the items were confiscated, or his representative or counsel; (b) a representative from the media; (c) a representative from the Department of Justice (DOJ); and (d) any elected public official. They should also sign the inventory and be given a copy thereof. If the drugs were confiscated pursuant to a search warrant, the Implementing Rules and Regulations of R.A. No. 9165 explicitly state that the physical inventory and photographing should be conducted at the place where the warrant is served.^[33]

In the 1999 Philippine National Police Drug Enforcement Manual (PNPDEM),^[34] the operating manual in place at the time of this case, the police officers serving a search warrant were also directed to perform the following:

CHAPTER V

x x x x

ANTI-DRUG OPERATIONAL PROCEDURES

x x x x

V. SPECIFIC RULES

x x x x

B. Conduct of Operation: (As far as practicable, all operations must be officer led)

x x x x

2. Service of Search Warrant – the following are the procedures in effecting the service of search warrant:

x x x x

h. Before entry, the Search Warrant shall be served by having a copy received by the respondent or any responsible occupant of the place to be searched;

1) In all cases, the search must be witnessed by the owner/occupant and in the presence of at least two (2) responsible persons in the vicinity, preferably two (2) barangay/town officials;

2) Only those personal property particularly described in the search warrant shall be seized to wit:

a. subject matter of the offense;
b. stolen or embezzled and otherproceeds (sic) of fruits of the offense;
c. used or intended to be used in the commission of an offense;
d. objects which are illegal per se, e.g. F/As and explosives; and
e. those that may be used as proof of the commission of the offense.

i. If the house or building to be searched has two or more rooms or enclosures, each rooms or enclosures must be searched one at a time in the presence of the occupants and two (2) witnesses;

j. The search group and evidence custodian, supervised by the team leader, shall take actual physical inventory of the evidence seized by weighing or counting, as the case may be, in the presence of the witnesses to include the suspect who must be placed under arrest upon discovery of any of the items described in the search warrant.

k. The duly designated searching element who found and seized the evidence must mark the same with his initials and also indicate the time, date and place where said evidence was found and seized and thereafter turn it over to the duly designated evidence custodian who shall also mark the evidence and indicate the time, date and place he received such evidence;

l. Take photographs of the evidence upon discovery without moving or altering its position in the place where it is placed, kept or hidden;

m. Weigh the evidence seized in the presence of the occupants and witnesses and prepare the drug weighing report to be signed by the arresting officers, evidence custodian, occupants an[d] witnesses. Again, take photographs of the evidence while in the process of inventory and weighing with the registered weight in the weighing scale focused by the camera;

n. Prepare a receipt and drug weighing report based on the actual physical inventory and weighing of the evidence found and seized and furnished the owner/possessor copies thereof or in his absence the occupant the premises and to the two (2) other witnesses in the conduct of search;

o. Require the owner or occupant of the premises and the two (2) witnesses to execute and sign a certification that the search was conducted in an orderly manner in their presence and that nothing was lost or destroyed during the search and nothing was taken except those mentioned in the search warrant;

p. Only the duly designated evidence custodian shall secure and preserve the evidence in an evidence bag or appropriate container and thereafter ensure its immediate presentation before the court that issued the search warrant;

q. The applicant shall cause the return of the search warrant (inc) together with the receipt of the seized evidence immediately after service of the warrant with p[r]ayer to the court that the evidence would be forwarded to PNP CLG for laboratory examination;

r. Upon completion of search, seizure and arrest and unless the tactical interrogation of the suspect on the scene shall lead to a follow-up operation, the team leader shall consolidate his forces to see to it that no ransacking or looting or destruction of property is committed;

s. Thereafter, the team shall immediately return to unit headquarters with the suspect and evidence for documentation. (Emphasis and underscoring supplied)

Here, it does not appear from the ponencia that the packets of marijuana, which were confiscated by virtue of the implementation of the search warrant, were immediately marked in Sundaram's residence. Neither do the records reflect this.

In his testimony, PO2 Maderal, one of the arresting officers, narrated that he placed markings on the seized items:

[(Direct Examination of PO2 Maderal)]
[Prosecutor Felixberto L. Guiratan]
Q	By the way, if you recall, were there markings on the specimen marijuana?
[PO2 Maderal]
A	Yes, Sir, my initial[s].
Q	Who did the markings?
A	I was the one.
Q	If you recall also what were the markings you did on the one (1) sachet of marijuana recovered during the buy-bust?
A	RBMA for the one (1) tea bag during the buy-bust. For the nineteen (19) tea bags it is marked RBMA1 to RBMA 19; for the twenty-six (26) tea bags it is marked RBMB 1 to RBMB 26; for the twenty-nine (29) tea bags the markings were RBMC 1 to RBMC29; and the other one RBMD to RBMD 1.[35]

PO2 Maderal, however, did not specify that these markings were immediately made at the place of the search. His testimony is also incongruous with the documentary evidence of the prosecution, particularly with the Certificate of Inventory and the Request for Laboratory Examination. While PO2 Maderal stated that he supposedly placed markings on the 74 individual bags of marijuana and on the other separate containers of marijuana, these markings were not reflected in the Certificate of Inventory. The pertinent portion of the inventory reads:

This is to certify further that the item was recovered and confiscated from the suspect's possession and control, during the said operation.

1)	ONE HUNDRED PESO BILL, SN: EG768699, MARKED MONEY WITH P600.00 ALL PLACE[D] INSIDE A BLACK WALLET.
2)	NINETEEN (19) TEA BAGS OF MARIJUANA DRIED LEAVES CRUSHED ALL PLACE[D] INSIDE COLOR BLACK BAG.
3)	TWENTY[-]SIX (26) TEA BAGS OF MARIJUANA DRIED CRUSHED LEAVES WITH SEEDS
4)	TWENTY[-]NINE (29) TEA BAGS OF MARIJUANA DRIED CRUSHED LEAVES WITH SEEDS ALL PLACE[D] IN SEPARATE CELLOPHANES
5)	DRIED [CRUSHED] LEAVES OF MARIJUANA PLACE[D] INSIDE GOLDEN YELLOW PLASTIC ICE CREAM CONTAINER.
6)	ONE (1) WHITE CELLOPHANE CONTAINING MARIJUANA DRIED STALKS.[36]

Oddly, the Request for Laboratory Examination^[37] indicates that these marijuana packets were marked as follows:

Quantity/Description	Exhibit
1. Nineteen (19) packets/teabags of suspected dried Marijuana [crushed] leaves with seeds all placed in a color black bag.	Marked as exhibit RBM-A-08-03-04, RBM-A1-08-03-04, through RBM-A19-08-03-04.
2. Twenty[-]six (26) packets/teabags of suspected dried Marijuana [crushed] leaves with seeds placed inside plastic cellophane.	Marked as exhibit RBM-B-08-03-04 and RBM-B1-08-03-04 through RBM-B26-08-03-04.
3. Twenty[-]nine (29) packets/teabags of suspected dried Marijuana [crushed] leaves with seeds placed inside plastic cellophane.	Marked as exhibit RBM-C-08-03-04 and RBM-C1-08-03-04 through RBM-C29-08-03-04.
4. One (1) cellophane color white of suspected several dried Marijuana stalks.	Marked as exhibit RBM-D-08-03-04 and RBM-D1-08-03-04.
5. Marijuana dried [crushed] leaves with seeds placed inside [oblong] color golden yellow plastic ice cream container.	Marked as exhibit RBM-E1-08-03-04.[38]

PO2 Maderal testified that the Certificate of Inventory was prepared right after the search,^[39] and the rest of the documentation was completed after the apprehending team returned to their office. This includes the Request for Laboratory Examination,^[40] the first document on record that reflects the markings PO2 Maderal purportedly made. However, it should be borne in mind that the Request for Laboratory Examination signals the turnover of the drug evidence to the forensic chemist. As such, it is relevant only for purposes of documenting the status of the confiscated drugs prior to its transfer to the succeeding custodian in the chain of custody. It cannot establish that markings were immediately made thereon because at that stage, a significant amount of time had already passed from the seizure of the dangerous drugs.

Had PO2 Maderal immediately marked the seized drugs, the first record of these markings should be the Certificate of Inventory, the preparation of which follows right after making these markings. The prosecution could have also shown that the photographs of the confiscated items contain the markings that PO2 Maderal described in his testimony. And yet, the photographs taken at the place of the arrest do not exhibit each of the confiscated plastic sachets and containers of marijuana, or that these were marked accordingly.^[41] The photos of the seized drugs laid out side by side were already taken at the apprehending team's office.^[42] Again, none of the items appear to have been marked.^[43]

Given the foregoing, it is clear that there was no marking made during the inventory-taking, which is apparent from the lack of the marking details in the Certificate of Inventory and the pictures presented in evidence, and that the marking was made only prior to submission of the seized drugs to the laboratory as shown in the Request for Laboratory Examination. The Court could only suppose that the markings were made sometime between the intervening period from the confiscation of the drugs and the preparation of the Request for Laboratory Examination. This is precisely the ambiguity that the chain of custody rule seeks to prevent.

As the Court explained in People v. Dahil,^[44] the immediate marking of the evidence is a necessary safeguard against the planting, switching, and tampering of the seized dangerous drugs — the failure to do so would cast doubts on the authenticity of the corpus delicti:

"Marking" means the placing by the apprehending officer or the poseur-buyer of his/her initials and signature on the items seized. Marking after seizure is the starting point in the custodial link; hence, it is vital that the seized contraband be immediately marked because succeeding handlers of the specimens will use the markings as reference. The marking of the evidence serves to separate the marked evidence from the corpus of all other similar or related evidence from the time they are seized from the accused until they are disposed of at the end of the criminal proceedings, thus, preventing switching, planting or contamination of evidence.

It must be noted that marking is not found in R.A. No. 9165 and is different from the inventory-taking and photography under Section 21 of the said law. Long before Congress passed R.A. No. 9165, however, this Court had consistently held that failure of the authorities to immediately mark the seized drugs would cast reasonable doubt on the authenticity of the corpus delicti.^[45] (Emphasis supplied)

It should be further emphasized that marking is a significant preparatory act to the inventory and photographing of dangerous drugs, as the succeeding links in the chain of custody are supposed to record the marks placed on the confiscated drug evidence.^[46] A gap in these initial custodial requirements makes it difficult for the court to keep track of the evidence while it moves along the chain of custody. Notably, the police officers in this case were armed with a search warrant and yet, they failed to comply with these requirements. The Court's observations in People v. Gayoso^[47] is instructive on this matter:

While marking of the evidence is allowed in the nearest police station, this contemplates a case of warrantless searches and seizures. Here, the police officers secured a search warrant prior to their operation. They therefore had sufficient time and opportunity to prepare for its implementation. However, the police officers failed to mark immediately the plastic sachets of shabu seized inside appellant's house in spite of an Inventory of Property Seized that they prepared while still inside the said house. The failure of the arresting officers to comply with the marking of evidence immediately after confiscation constitutes the first gap in the chain of custody.^[48] (Emphasis supplied)

Under the 1999 PNPDEM, the police officers implementing a search warrant were even required to mark the evidence twice: after it was found by the searching element, and upon turn-over to the duly designated evidence custodian. The apprehending team did not comply with either of these requirements. They likewise failed to indicate the weight of each packet of marijuana in either the inventory or the Request for Laboratory Examination, further engendering doubts in my mind that the drugs presented in court were indeed the same ones taken from the appellant.

III.

Another glaring lapse on the part of the apprehending team is the absence of a DOJ representative during the inventory and photographing of the seized items. The mandatory presence of the witnesses to the inventory and photographing is required in all instances of seizure and confiscation of dangerous drugs. More so when the drug evidence was seized by virtue of a search warrant, which, like a buy-bust operation, requires advance planning and preparation.

The police officers in this case had time to obtain a search warrant, prepare for the buy-bust operation that preceded the service of the warrant, and to make the necessaiy arrangements for the subsequent enforcement of the search warrant. Clearly, during the planning stage for the operation, the police officers likewise had ample time to secure the presence of the required witnesses. However, the only witnesses at the time of the inventory and photographing were the barangay officials and the representatives from the media.^[49] They did not obtain the presence of a DOJ representative.

The Court held in People v. Ramos^[50] that when there are lapses in the chain of custody rule, particularly when not all of the mandatory witnesses are present, there must be a "justifiable reason for such failure [to secure the attendance of these witnesses] or a showing of any genuine and sufficient effort to secure the required witnesses."^[51] None was provided in the decision to justify the absence of the DOJ representative. There is also no indication in the records that the prosecution explained this lapse, or at the very least, that the apprehending team exerted earnest efforts to secure the attendance of the absent witness.

In Dizon v. People,^[52] the Court held that the deviation from the requirements of Section 21, coupled by the absence of a justifiable ground therefor, compromised the integrity and evidentiary value of the corpus delicti:

In this case, the apprehending team plainly failed to comply with the witness requirements under the law, i.e., that the photographing and inventory of the seized items be witnessed by a representative from the media, the Department of Justice (DOJ), and any elected public official. The records are clear: only two (2) barangay officials were present to witness the operation, as observed by the RTC:

x x x x

Worse, there was no indication whatsoever that the apprehending team attempted, at the very least, to secure the presence of the other required witnesses.

Thus, as a result of the foregoing irregularities committed by the government authorities, the conviction of Dizon now hangs in the balance. In this respect, in order not to render void the seizure and custody over the evidence obtained from the latter, the prosecution is thus required, as a matter of law, to establish the following: (i) that such non-compliance was based on justifiable grounds, and (ii) that the integrity and evidentiary value of the seized items were properly preserved.

x x x x

At the outset, the Court finds it brazen of the police officers to recognize their fatal error in procedure and yet at the same time offer no explanation or justification for doing so, which, as stated above, is required by the law. What further catches the attention of the Court is the fact that Dizon was apprehended pursuant to a search warrant and therefore with more reason, the police officers could have secured the presence of the other witnesses, i.e., the DOJ representative and media representative.

However, despite the advantage of planning the operation ahead, the apprehending team nonetheless inexplicably failed to comply with the basic requirements of Section 21 of R.A No. 9165. x x x^[53] (Emphasis supplied; emphasis in the original omitted)

Here, the apprehending team committed grave procedural lapses not only in the initial custody and handling of the seized marijuana, but with the witness requirements of Section 21, Article II of R.A. No. 9165. No explanation was alleged or proven to justify these deviations from these statutory requirements. Instead, the ponencia relied heavily on the vague statements in the appellant's Counter-Affidavits to prove that the identity and integrity of the drug evidence were preserved.

To be sure, the Court has not veered away from affirming the conviction of an accused when the requirements of Section 21 are duly observed. In particular, Santos v. People^[54] and Concepcion v. People^[55] involve the implementation of a search warrant, and in both instances, the arresting officers were easily able to comply with all the requirements of Section 21. These cases exhibit the reasonableness of the custodial requirements in R.A. No. 9165, and that it is entirely within the realm of possibility for law enforcement to perform their duties accordingly.

The Court would be remiss in its duty to faithfully apply the law if, despite the inattentive and careless manner by which police officers performed their functions, the conviction of the accused would nonetheless be affirmed. The gaps in the chain of custody cannot be justified by the ambiguous admissions of the appellant in this case. The arresting officers were duty-bound to observe the chain of custody rule from the moment that dangerous drugs were supposedly confiscated from the possession of the appellant — regardless of any subsequent admission or confession on his part. Failing this, the Court should not substitute the appellant's sworn statements for the required proof of the integrity and evidentiary value of the drug evidence, especially where, as here, the imprecise language of these statements being extant.

I also respectfully disagree with the ponencia's conclusion that since the present case involves a large volume of dangerous drugs, this "[goes] against the possibility of planting or substitution by the police."^[56] The amount of drugs involved should not dictate the manner by which the Court must evaluate the guilt of the accused. Section 21, Article II of R.A. No. 9165 does not qualify its application depending on the volume of drugs involved. The only matter under R.A. No. 9165, on which the quantity of drugs depends, is the severity of the imposable penalty for the offense of illegal possession of dangerous drugs. This underscores the necessity for the Court's adherence to the chain of custody rule — to ensure that the accused is charged accurately to the last gram and found guilty only when the identity and integrity of the drug evidence are duly preserved. Considering the police officers' blatant disregard of this rule in this case, I disagree with the finding of the ponencia to affirm the conviction of the appellant.

^[2] Id. at 18.

^[3] Records, p. 8.

^[4] Id. at 4; TSN, August 10, 2006, p. 6.

^[5] TSN, August 10, 2006, pp. 13-14.

^[6] Exhibit "D," index of exhibits, p. 9; id. at 13-15.

^[7] TSN, August 10, 2006, pp. 21-22.

^[8] Id. at 23-25.

^[9] Exhibits "I," "J," index of exhibits, pp. 15-16.

^[10] Ponencia, pp. 9-10.

^[11] CA rollo, p. 26; id. at 17.

^[12] CA rollo, p. 25; ponencia, id.

^[13] Ponencia, id.; emphasis in the original.

^[14] People v. Buntag, G.R. No. 123070, April 14, 2004, 427 SCRA 180, 190-191.

^[15] Sanvicente v. People, G.R. No. 132081, November 26, 2002, 392 SCRA 610, 618-619, citing People v. Licayan, G.R. No. 144422, February 28, 2002, 378 SCRA 281, 292.

^[16] CA rollo, p. 26.

^[17] Id. at 25; emphasis supplied.

^[18] Id.

^[19] Ponencia, p. 17; emphasis in the original.

^[20] TSN, January 15, 2015, pp. 14-15

^[21] Id. at 20.

^[22] Ponencia, p. 18; emphasis in the original.

^[23] Id.

^[24] Id. at 20.

^[25] CA rollo, p. 25.

^[26] R.A. No. 9165, Art. II, Sec. 11.

^[27] People v. Satorre, G.R. No. 133858, August 12, 2003, 408 SCRA 642, 648.

^[28] The relevant paragraph of this section reads:

SEC. 21. Custody and Disposition of Confiscated, Seized, and/or Surrendered Dangerous Drugs, Plant Sources of Dangerous Drugs, Controlled Precursors and Essential Chemicals, Instruments/Paraphernalia and/or Laboratory Equipment. – The PDEA shall take charge and have custody of all dangerous drugs, plant sources of dangerous drugs, controlled precursors and essential chemicals, as well as instruments/paraphernalia and/or laboratory equipment so confiscated, seized and/or surrendered, for proper disposition in the following manner:

(1) The apprehending team having initial custody and control of the drugs shall, immediately after seizure and confiscation, physically inventory and photograph the same in the presence of the accused or the person/s from whom such items were confiscated and/or seized, or his/her representative or counsel, a representative from the media and the Department of Justice (DOJ), and any elected public official who shall be required to sign the copies of the inventory and be given a copy thereof[.]

^[29] Ponencia, p. 18.

^[30] People v. Nandi, G.R. No. 188905, July 13, 2010, 625 SCRA 123, 133.

^[31] People v. Alejandro, G.R. No. 176350, August 10, 2011, 655 SCRA 279, 289.

^[32] People v. Sabdula, G.R. No. 184758, April 21, 2014, 722 SCRA 90, 100.

^[33] Sec. 21 (a).

^[34] PNPM-D-0-3-1-99 [NG], the precursor anti-illegal drug operations manual prior to the 2010 and 2014 AIDSOTF Manual.

^[35] TSN, August 10, 2006, pp. 26-27.

^[36] Exhibit "D," index of exhibits, p. 9.

^[37] Exhibit "O," index of exhibits, pp. 22-23.

^[38] Id.; emphasis in the original.

^[39] TSN, August 10, 2006, p. 14.

^[40] Id. at 21-22.

^[41] Exhibits "K-2" and "K-3," "L-2" and "L-3," index of exhibits, pp. 18-19.

^[42] TSN, August 10, 2006, pp. 18-19.

^[43] Exhibits "K-1" and "L-1," index of exhibits, pp. 18-19.

^[44] G.R. No. 212196, January 12, 2015, 745 SCRA 221.

^[45] Id. at 240-241.

^[46] See People v. Lumaya, G.R. No. 231983, March 7, 2018, 858 SCRA 114, 131-132.

^[47] G.R. No. 206590, March 27, 2017, 821 SCRA 516.

^[48] Id. at 530.

^[49] Exhibit "D," index of exhibits, p. 9.

^[50] G.R. No. 233744, February 28, 2018, 857 SCRA 175.

^[51] Id. at 190; emphasis and underscoring omitted.

^[52] G.R. No. 239399, March 25, 2019.

^[53] Id. at 8-9.

^[54] G.R. No. 242656, August 14, 2019.

^[55] G.R. No. 243345, March 11, 2019.

^[56] Ponencia, p. 20.