GR 256839; (February, 2023) (Digest)
G.R. No. 256839 . February 22, 2023.
People of the Philippines, Plaintiff-Appellee, vs. Bobby Lopina y Labestre alias “Barok,” Accused-Appellant.
FACTS
An Information charged Bobby Lopina y Labestre (accused-appellant) with violation of Section 6, Article II of R.A. No. 9165 (Maintenance of a Drug Den). The prosecution alleged that on September 12, 2009, accused-appellant maintained and utilized his house in Iloilo City as a drug den. The case stemmed from a tip received by PDEA agents on September 7, 2009, about accused-appellant’s drug activities. A surveillance and a test-buy of shabu from accused-appellant at his house were conducted on September 8, 2009. A search warrant was issued and implemented on September 12, 2009. During the search, PDEA agents found 21 plastic sachets of shabu, drug paraphernalia, and a firearm inside the house. An inventory was conducted in the presence of accused-appellant, a DOJ prosecutor, a media representative, and barangay officials, but accused-appellant refused to sign the inventory receipt. The seized items tested positive for methamphetamine hydrochloride. Accused-appellant denied the charges, claiming the PDEA agents forcibly entered his house, handcuffed him and others without reason, and only presented the seized items after the barangay officials arrived.
ISSUE
Whether the Court of Appeals correctly affirmed the Regional Trial Court’s conviction of accused-appellant for the offense of Maintenance of a Drug Den, in violation of Section 6, Article II of R.A. No. 9165 .
RULING
The Supreme Court granted the appeal and acquitted accused-appellant. The prosecution failed to prove beyond reasonable doubt all elements of Maintenance of a Drug Den. Specifically, it failed to establish that accused-appellant’s house was a “drug den,” defined as a place where dangerous drugs are regularly sold or used. The evidence presented—an isolated test-buy and the items seized during a single search—only proved at most an isolated illegal drug transaction or possession, not the regular or customary use of the place as a drug den. The Court cited People v. Andanar, which requires proof that the place is where dangerous drugs are regularly sold to and/or used by customers. The evidence here did not meet that standard. Consequently, accused-appellant’s conviction was reversed and set aside. He was ordered immediately released from detention unless confined for another lawful cause.