Case Digest (G.R. No. 256839)
Facts:
People of the Philippines v. Bobby Lopina y Labestre alias "Barok", G.R. No. 256839, February 22, 2023, the Supreme Court Third Division, Inting, J., writing for the Court. The case arose from an Information dated November 23, 2015 in the Regional Trial Court (RTC), Branch 25, Iloilo City (Criminal Case No. 09-67774), charging Bobby Lopina y Labestre (accused-appellant) with Maintenance of a Drug Den in violation of Section 6, Article II of Republic Act No. 9165. The accused pleaded not guilty at arraignment and trial followed.The prosecution’s factual narrative was that, after a confidential informant's tip, PDEA agents conducted surveillance and a “test-buy” on September 8, 2009 at the accused’s residence in Barangay Bakhaw, Mandurriao, Iloilo City; a search warrant issued September 11, 2009 was executed on September 12, 2009, during which the agents allegedly found sachets and paraphernalia containing methamphetamine hydrochloride (“shabu”), marked and inventoried, and the items later tested positive at the PNP Crime Laboratory. The PDEA apprehended the accused and some occupants and prepared inventory/receipt documents which the accused refused to sign. The prosecution relied on the test-buy, the items found during the search, and witness testimony to prove maintenance of a drug den.
The defense described forcible entry and immediate handcuffing of the accused while he was cleaning a pigpen; he denied ownership of the seized items and refused to sign inventory documents. At trial the RTC (Presiding Judge Rose Edith G. Togonon) rendered a Decision dated January 5, 2018 convicting the accused of Maintenance of a Drug Den, sentencing him to life imprisonment and imposing a P500,000 fine, finding the prosecution witnesses credible and the chain of custody intact. The accused appealed to the Court of Appeals (CA-G.R. CR-HC No. 02948), which, in a Decision dated July 7, 2020 (penalized by Associate Justice Pamela Ann Abella Maxino, concurred in by Justices Ingles and Lagura‑Yap), affirmed the RTC judgment.
The accused filed an ordinary appeal to the Supreme Court (entry of appearance with motion to admit notice of appeal), which considered the appeal on the records and briefs filed in the CA and by the partie...(Subscriber-Only)
Issues:
- Did the prosecution prove beyond reasonable doubt that the accused-appellant was maintaining a drug den as required under Section 6, Article II of RA 9165?
- Did the prosecution establish an unbroken chain of custody for the seized items as required under Section 21, Article II of RA 9165 (as then in force), such that the seized items could co...(Subscriber-Only)
Ruling:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Ratio:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Doctrine:
- (Subscriber-Only)