PP vs. BOBBY LOPINA y LABESTRE, GR No. 256839, February 22, 2023
Section 6, RA 9165
“For an accused to convicted of the offense of Maintenance of a Drug Den under Section 6 of RA 9165, the prosecution must prove beyond reasonable doubt that he or she os “maintaining a den” where any dangerous drugs is administered, used or sold. Hence, to sustain the conviction of Maintenance of a Drug Den, the prosecution must prove the following elements: (a) that the place is a den — a place where any dangerous drug and/or controlled precursor and essential chemical is administered, delivered, stored for illegal purposes, distributed, sold, or used in any form, and (b) that the accused maintains the said place.
“XXX. The single and isolated test- buy allegedly conducted by the PDEA team at accused-appellant’s house does not evince such is being “regularly” and “frequently” used as a place where illegal drugs are sold to and/used by any person.”
Chain of custody rule:
“No chain of custody form was accomplished by the PDEA agents. Thus, there is no documentary evidence of every link in the chain from the moment the items were picked up to the time theyt were offered as evidence required under Section 21, Article II of RA 9165.
PP vs. BOBBY LOPINA y LABESTRE, GR No. 256839, February 22, 2023
“Contrary to the finding of the CA that the chain of custody was followed in this case, this Court cannot turn a blind eye to the requirements under Section 21 of RA 9165, thus:
Sec. 21. Custody and Disposition of Confiscated, Seized, and/or Surrendered Dangerous Drugs, Plant Sources of Dangerous Drugs, Controlled Precursors and Essential Chemicals, Instruments/Paraphernalias 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:
- The apprehending team having initial custody and control of the dangerous drugs, controlled precursors and essential chemicals, instruments/paraphernalia and/or ;laboratory equipment shall, immediately after seizure and confiscation, conduct a physical inventory of the seized items and photograph the same in the presence of the accused or the person from whom such items were confiscated and/or seized, or his/her representative or counsel, with an elected public official and a representative of the National Prosecution Service or the the media who shall be required to sign the copies of the inventory and be given a copy thereof x x x (Emphasis supplied)
Here, it was clear that there was no member of the media or the National Prosecution Service as required by law.
x x x
While jurisprudence recognizes that the chain of custody is not an inflexible rule, any deviations thereto has to be sufficiently explained, thus:
As a general rule, compliance with the chain of custody procedure is strictly enjoined as the same has been regarded “not merely as procedural technicality but as a matter of substantive law/ Nonetheless, anent the witness requirement, non-compliance may be permitted if the prosecution proves that the apprehended efforts exerted genuine and sufficient efforts to secure the presence of such witnesses, albeit they eventually failed to appear. While the earnestness of these efforts must be examined on a case-to case basis, the overarching objective is for the Court to be convinced that the failure to comply was reasonable under the given circumstances. Thus, mere statements of unavailability, absent actual serious attempts to contact the required witnesses, are unacceptable as justified grounds for non-compliance. These considerations arise from the fact that police officers are ordinarily given sufficient time — beginning from the moment they have received the information about the activities of the accused until the time of his arrest — to prepare for a buy-bust operation, and consequently, make the necessary arrangement beforehand, knowing fully well that they would have to strictly comply with the chain of custody rule. (Emphasis supplied)
In this case, there was no explanation for the non-observance of the requirements of the law which could warrant the liberality allowed therein. Absent such justification, and considering that the law enforcement had ample time to coordinate said witnesses given that that they had ample time to apply for a search warrant, the Court has no other option but to declare the corpus delicti of the crimes charged as not having been established. Thus the acquittal of the petitioner is in order.
JOE MARIE MENDOZA vs People of The Philippines, GR No. 248350, Dec. 5, 2022
Plea bargaining
“While the Court takes judicial notice of the efforts of the DOJ to amend DOJ Circular No. 27 to conform to the Court’s framework for plead bargaining in drugs cases as set forth in A.M. No. 18-03016-SC, it bears emphasizing that plea bargaining in criminal cases is a rule of procedure that falls within the exclusive-rule making power of the Court under Section 5(5), Article VIII of the 1987 Constitution.
Also, while the issuance of Circular No. 18 has admittedly rendered moot the issues in the present case, the Court is not precluded from examining and ruling on the merits thereof especially if: (1) there is a need to stress the exclusive rule-making power of the Court; (2) the decision will guide the bench and the bar in resolving issues concerning plea bargaining agreements in drugs cases; and (3) the issue if capable of repitition yet evading judicial review.
As correctly held by the CA, the power and authority to promulgate the rules of procedure, such as the procedure on plea bargaining, is lodged exclusively with the Court. It is no longer shared with the executive and legislative department.”
- People of the Philippines vs. Rene Esma y Joven, GR No. 250979, January 11, 2023
Validity of search warrant when the same involves multiple offenses:
“XXX the one specific-offense requirement for search warrant is intended to ensure that each search warrant is founded on probable cause in relation to one specific offense only. This is also a safeguard under the rules to ensure that the constitutional right of persons against unreasonable searches and seizures is not violated. Therefore, We hold that the search warrant in this case is void for violating the one-specific-offense rule.
Contrary to the suggestion of the OSG that the invalid portions of the search warrant could be severed from the valid portions, the Court cannot simply decided to uphold the enforcement of a search warrant in relation to one of the crimes stated therein. The evil sought to be avoided cannot be delineated since the totality of the search warrant could have led the law enforcement authorities to implement the same in a wholesale fashion considering all the offenses mentioned therein, and seize any and all evidence seized related to all of the crimes mentioned in the search warrant. The Court cannot sever the supposed “valid” portions of the search warrant in relation to one of the crimes stated therein after the fact of its implementation.”
Right of an accused to question the validity of a search warrant even though he is not person subject of the search stated in the search warrant:
“In this case the intrusion of law enforcement agents in the room where they found petitioner would not have been possible were it not for the search warrant they had at that time which lent apparent authority to be in the searched premises. As such, the validity of the search warrant is intimately linked to the arrest of petitioner, and the seizure of the items used against him.”
xxx
“In this case, since the search warrant is invalid, it follows that the evidence obtained pursuant thereto are inadmissible. Moreover, although the warrantless could have been questioned on the ground that the authorities’ presence within the searched premises is illegal due to an invalid search warrant, this has been waived after the arraignment of petitioner. In any case, petitioner should be allowed to question the admissibility of the evidence seized against him. Otherwise, this would warrant a license for authorities which can be abused to the detriment of the constitutional right to be secured in one’s home. As the famous maxim states “what cannot be done directly cannot likewise be done indirectly.”
JOE MARIE MENDOZA vs People of The Philippines, GR No. 248350, Dec. 5, 2022