Case Digest (G.R. No. 181441)
Facts:
People of the Philippines v. Larry Lopez, G.R. No. 181441, November 14, 2008, First Division, Carpio, J., writing for the Court. The appellant is Larry Lopez; the appellee is the People of the Philippines. Lopez was charged in two Informations—Criminal Case No. 3188 for the sale of 0.06 gram of shabu in violation of Section 5, Article II of R.A. No. 9165, and Criminal Case No. 3189 for possession of 6.20 grams of dried marijuana in violation of Section 11, Article II of R.A. No. 9165. Upon arraignment he pleaded not guilty and trial followed.The prosecution’s version was that on 1 November 2003 a barangay official reported alleged peddling by appellant, prompting a buy-bust operation. A confidential agent and PO1 Romeo Miranda acted as the poseur-buyers. The confidential agent testified that he agreed to purchase P500 worth of shabu; appellant instructed them to wait and later arrived by tricycle in front of Ditha’s Hardware at about 11:05 a.m. The agent gave appellant marked money and appellant gave a sachet of shabu; the agent turned the sachet over to PO1 Miranda and the police immediately arrested Lopez. A subsequent frisk/search of appellant yielded two Marlboro cigarette packs and a cigarette foil with dried marijuana. Field and confirmatory laboratory tests identified the seized substances as methylamphetamine hydrochloride (shabu) and marijuana.
Lopez denied guilt, claiming he was framed: he said he was driving passengers to the cemetery when men in plain clothes blocked him, forcibly pulled him from the tricycle, handcuffed and frisked him, and then arrested him. He contested (a) alleged inconsistencies in police testimony regarding a pre-arranged signal and the markings on the buy‑bust money, and (b) the legality of the warrantless search that produced the marijuana because, he argued, he had not been caught in flagrante selling shabu.
The Regional Trial Court (Branch 96, Baler, Aurora) rendered a Joint Decision on 21 December 2005 finding Lopez guilty beyond reasonable doubt of both offenses and sentenced him in Criminal Case No. 3188 to life imprisonment and a P500,000 fine, and in Criminal Case No. 3189 to 14 years imprisonment and a P300,000 fine. On appeal, the Court of Appeals in CA‑G.R. CR‑HC No. 02031 affirmed on 25 Se...(Subscriber-Only)
Issues:
- Is appellant guilty beyond reasonable doubt of violating Section 5, Article II of R.A. No. 9165 (sale of 0.06 gram of shabu)?
- Is appellant guilty beyond reasonable doubt of violating Section 11, Article II of R.A. No. 9165 (possession of 6.20 grams of dried marijuana), and if so, is the penalty imposed by...(Subscriber-Only)
Ruling:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Ratio:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Doctrine:
- (Subscriber-Only)