l\.

epublit of tbe ~bilippineg

~upreme ~ourt
:.fflanila

THIRD DIVISION

PEOPLE OF THE G.R. No. 256839

PHILIPPINES,
Plaintiff-Appellee, Present:

CAGUIOA, J., Chairperson,

INTING,
- versus - GAERLAN,
DIMAAMPAO, and
SINGH, JJ.
BOBBY LOPINA y LABESTRE
alias "Barok," Promulgated:
Accused-Appellant.
February 22, 2023
x- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - P!\~~s.,~-~" - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -x

RESOLUTION

INTING, J.:

Before the Court is an ordinary appeal 1 assailing the Decision2 dated

July 7, 2020 of the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. CR-HC No. 02948.
The CA dismissed the appeal filed by Bobby Lopina y Labestre (accused-
appellant) and affirmed the Decision3 dated January 5, 2018, of Branch 25,
Regional Trial Court (RTC), Iloilo City, in Criminal Case No. 09-67774 that
found him guilty beyond reasonable doubt of violation of Section 6, 4 Article
II of Republic Act No. (RA) 9165, otherwise known as the Comprehensive
Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002, as amended.

1 See Entry of Appearance with Motion to Admit Notice of Appeal; Rollo, pp. 5- 8.
2 Id. at 12- 29. Penned by Associate Justice Pamela Ann Abella Maxino and concurred in by Associate
Justices Gabriel T. Ingles and Marilyn B. Lagura-Yap.
Id. at 31-48 . Penned by Presiding Judge Rose Edith G. Togonon.
4
SEC. 6. Maintenance of a Den, Dive or Resort. - The penalty of life imprisonment to death and a fine
ranging from Five hundred thousand pesos (PS00,000.00) to Ten million pesos (Pl0,000,000.00) shall be
imposed upon any person or group of persons who shall maintain a den, dive or resort where any
dangerous drug is used or sold in any form.
xxxx
Resolution 2 G.R. No. 256839

The Antecedents

The instant case stemmed from an Information dated November 23,

2015, charging accused-appellant with violation of Section 6, Article II of RA
9165, the accusatory portion of which states:

That on or about the 12th day of September 2009 in the City of Iloilo,
Philippines and within the jurisdiction of this Court, said accused with
deliberate intent and without any justifiable motive, did then and there
willfully, knowingly, unlawfully and criminally maintain and utilize his
residential house located at Punta Dike, Brgy. Bakhaw, Mandurriao, Iloilo
City, as a drug den where, methamphetamine hydrochloride (shabu), a
dangerous drug, is being administered, delivered and stored for illegal
purposes, and/or used thereat, without having the necessary permit or
authority to do so.

CONTRARY TO LAW. 5

Upon arraignment on October 21, 2009, accused-appellant pleaded "not

guilty" to the offense charged. 6

Trial ensued.

Version of the Prosecution

The prosecution established that on September 7, 2009, at around 9:00

a.m., Investigation Agent 1 Paul D. Ledesma (IAl Ledesma) of the Philippine
Drug Enforcement Agency (PDEA), Region VI, received a tip from a
confidential informant that accused-appellant was engaged in selling shabu in
Barangay Bakhaw, Mandurriao, Iloilo City. That afternoon, Investigation
Officer 2 Gelly Robins G. Catalufia (102 Catalufia) and IOI Guilbert
Sumalangcay (IOI Sumalangcay)7 conducted a surveillance operation at
accused-appellant's house. At the target area, they observed that several
suspected drug pushers and drug users went in and out of the house. Thus,
IAl Ledesma ordered 102 Catalufia and IOI Sumalangcay to conduct a "test-
buy" the following day. 8

On September 8, 2009, 102 Catalufia, with the assistance of the

informant, was able to purchase from accused-appellant at his house P600.00
worth of shabu during the "test-buy." 9

5 As culled from the CA Decision; rollo, p. 13.

6 Id. at 31.
7 Also referred to as "Gilbert" and "Sumalancay" in some parts of the rollo (see id. at 34, 36-37).
8
Id. at 14.
9
Id.
Resolution j G.R. No. 256839

On September 11, 2009, the PDEA agents applied for a search warrant,
which Judge Ma. Elena Opinion (Judge Opinion) granted. Hence, Judge
Opinion issued Search Warrant No. 53-2009 authorizing the search on the
residence of accused-appellant for an "undetermined volume of shabu and
drug paraphemalia." 10

On September 12, 2009, at around 3:00 p.m., the PDEA team arrived
at accused-appellant's house to implement the search warrant. Outside the
fence, 102 Catalufia called out to the occupants of the house informing them
that they were members of the PDEA and that they would be implementing a
search warrant. Upon hearing the warning, the occupants of the house
scrambled out of the second floor to evade the PDEA agents. When they saw
the occupants running, 102 Catalufia and 101 Sumalangcay forced open the
bamboo fence. 102 Catalufia ran after accused-appellant, who was running to
the back of his house. In no time, 102 Catalufia apprehended and handcuffed
accused-appellant. The PDEA team also apprehended four other occupants of
the house. 11

After about 15 minutes, Barangay Captain Ruby Gallano (Barangay

Captain Gallano) and Barangay Kagawad Eduardo Alegrada (Kagawad
Alegrada) arrived. Then, IAl Ledesma read the search warrant to accused-
appellant. Immediately, 101 Daisy Sabana] (JOI Sabanal) and JOI Maria
Melinda Panaguiton (IO 1 Panaguiton) began their search on the second floor
of the house. There, they were able to find two pieces of crumpled aluminum
foil with suspected shabu residue, as well as several lighters. i:

101 Sabanal and 101 Panaguiton, together with accused-appellant and

Barangay Captain Gallano, proceeded to the first floor. There, the PDEA team
found 21 plastic sachets containing suspected shabu weighing a total of 0.25
gram in one of the drawers.13 They also found a .38 caliber revolver with live
ammunition, more lighters, an aluminum foil with suspected shabu residue, a
pipa, bamboo sticks (used in sealing plastic sachets), and empty plastic
wrappers with suspected shabu residue. 14

Meanwhile, Julius Padilla (Padilla), a representative from the media,

and Prosecutor Raymond Joseph Javier (Atty. Javier), a representative from
the Department of Justice (DOJ), arrived. After the search, 101 Panaguiton
marked the seized items, while IO 1 Sabanal conducted the inventory in the
presence of accused-appellant, Atty. Javier, Padilla, Barangay Captain
Gallano, and Kagawad Alegrada. Then, IO 1 Sabanal prepared a Receipt of
Inventory of Property Seized which Padilla, Barangay Captain Gallano, and

IO Id.
11
Jd. at 15.
12
Id. at 16.
3
' Id. at 34.
14
Id. at 16.
Resolution 4 G.R. No. 256839

Kagawad Aiegrada signed. However, accused-appellant refused to sign the

receipt. IOI Panaguiton also prepared a Certificate of Inventory. Again,
accused-appellant refused to sign the certificate. 15

After the marking and inventory, the PDEA team arrested accused-
appellant for the crime of Maintenance of a Drug Den. They apprised him of
his rights. Then the PDEA team and accused-appellant proceeded to the
nearest police station. 16 Because it was a Saturday, the PDEA team could not
make a return of the search warrant to the issuing court. Thereafter, IO I
Sabanal turned over the seized items to IOI Panaguiton, the evidence
custodian at the PDEA Regiona] Office. 17

On September 14, 2009, a Monday~ the PDEA agents appeared before

Judge Opinion to file the Return of Search Warrant. IOI Sabanal and IOI
Panaguiton brought the seized items to the PNP Crime Laboratory which,
after a laboratory examination, proved and tested positive for
methamphetamine hydrochloride or shabu. 18

Version of the Defense

In his defense, accused-appellant argued that in the afternoon of

September 12, 2009, while he was in his backyard cleaning pig pens, someone
forcibly kicked the door of his house. His nephew, Ryan Celiz (Ryan), was
inside the house with his friends Amel Alcabaza, Merwin Granzon, and Rey
Juanico, Jr., when several men forcibly entered and ordered them to lie down
on the floor. They handcuffed and dragged Ryan and his friends outside of the
house. 19

Accused-appellant further argued that while he was at his back-yard, a

man arrived and pointed a gun at him. Then, the man kicked and handcuffed
him for no reason at all. The man, later identified as a PDEA agent, then
brought him to the front of his house where his nephew and the latter's friends
were also handcuffed.20

After 30 minutes, the barangay officials arrived. It was only at this time
that the PDEA team brought him back inside the house to accompany them in
searching the premises. After the search, the PDEA team presented to him
items purportedly found inside his house. He refused to sign the document

15 Id. at 17.
16 Id.
17
Id. at 17 and 35 .
18 ld. at 17-18.
19
Id.at18-19.
20 Id. at 19.
Resolution 5 G.R. No. 256839

presented to him because the items did not belong to him. Afterwards, they
brought him to the police station. 21

Ruling of the RTC

In the Decision22 dated January 5, 2018, the RTC convicted accused-

appellant of the offense of Maintenance of a Drug Den, in violation of Section
6 of RA 9165. It sentenced him to suffer the penalty oflife imprisonment and
ordered him to pay a fine of P500,000.00. 23

The R TC gave full credence to the testimonies of the prosecution

witnesses. It ruled that the prosecution proved all the elements of Maintenance
of a Drug Den. Moreover, it found that the integrity and evidentiary value of
the seized items were duly preserved. 24

Aggrieved, accused-appellant appealed to the CA.

The CA Ruling

In the assailed Decision, 25 the CA affirmed the RTC Decision

convicting accused-appellant of violation of Section 6 of RA 9165.

The CA upheld the validity of the search warrant. It likewise ruled that
all the elements of Maintenance of a Drug Den were duly established. In
addition, it agreed with the RTC that there was an unbroken chain of custody
of the seized items based on the testimony of the prosecution witnesses. 26

Hence, the instant appeal. 27

Accused-appellant manifested that he no longer intends to file a

Supplemental Brief as he adopts the contents of the Appellant's Brief he filed
before the CA. 28 Likewise, the Office of the Solicitor General (OSG), in behalf
of the People, manifested that it is adopting the Appellee ' s Brief it filed before
the CA. 29

21 Id.
22 Id. at 31-48.
23
Id. at 48.
24 ld. at 44-46.
25
Id. at 12--29.
26 Id. at 22-29.
27
ld. at 5-8.
28
Id. at 56--58.
29
Id.at51-53 .
Resolution 6 G.R. No. 256839

The Issue

Whether the CA correctly affirmed the R TC' s conviction of accused-

appellant for the offense of Maintenance of a Drug Den, in violation of Section
6 Article II of RA 9165.

The Court's Ruling

The appeal is meritorious.

To begin with, it must be emphasized that an appeal opens an entire

criminal case to review, and the reviewing tribunal has the duty "to correct,
cite, and appreciate errors in the appealed judgment whether they are assigned
or unassigned." 30 The appellate court is conferred full jurisdiction over the
case and is rendered competent "to examine records, revise the judgment
appealed from, increase the penalty, and cite the proper provision of the penal
law." 31

For an accused to be 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 is "maintaining a den" where any dangerous
drug is administered, used, or sold. 32 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. 33

Here, the prosecution failed to establish beyond reasonable doubt that

accused-appellant is maintaining a drug den.

The evidence relied upon by the RTC in conv1ctmg the accused-

appellant of Maintenance of a Drug Den substantially consists of the
following: (1) the result of the test-buy allegedly conducted by the PDEA
agents four days prior to the implementation of the search warrant; 34 and (2)
the drug paraphernalia and plastic sachets containing shabu allegedly found
inside accused-appellant's house. 35

In People v. Andanar and Garbo (Andanar), 36 the Court acquitted Mary

Jane Garbo for failure of the prosecution to establish that she was maintaining
30 People v. Dapitan, G .R. No. 207518 (Notice), November 24, 2021.
31
People v. Quinones, G.R. No. 250908, November 23 , 2020.
32
People v. Carino, 850 Phil. 457, 470-471 (2019).
33
People v. Andanar, G.R. No. 246284~ June 1.6~ 2021.
34
Rollo, pp. 24-25.
35
Id. at 32- 33 .
36
Supra.
Resolution 7 G.R. No. 256839

a drug den or that her house was used as a place where dangerous drugs were
"regularly" sold to and/or used by customers, thus:

First, a drug den is a lair or hideaway where prohibited or regulated

drugs are used in any form or are found. Its existence may be proved not
only by direct evidence but may also be established by proof of facts and
circumst~ces, including evidence of the general reputation of the house, or
its general reputation among police officers.

People v. Galicia ordained that the prosecution must establish that

the alleged drug den is a place -where dangerous drugs are regularly sold to
and/or used by customers of the maintainer of the den. The word "regular"
means doing the same thing in uniform intervals, or something that is a
common occurrence.

Here, PO2 Antillon, Jr. testified that Garbo invited him inside her
house where the sale of illegal drugs between him and Andanar took place.
Thereafter, Garbo offered PO2 Antillon, Jr. that he could already use the
drug he just bought for an additional fee of P20.00. If at all, this only proves
an isolated illegal drug transaction involving SPO2 Antillon, Jr. , Andanar,
and Garbo. There was nothing on record, however, showing that Garbo's
house was frequently used as a drug den. Neither did the prosecution prove
that Garbo's house had a general reputation as such. Surely, the prosecution
had only presented a singular occurrence of the so-called illegal drug
activity in Garbo's house. The same does not satisfy the requirement in
Galicia. Garbo, therefore, cannot be considered a maintainer of drug den.
Besides, the supposed corpus delicti was not even established in view of the
clear violation of the chain of custody rule, compromising its integrity.37
(Emphases omitted.)

After judiciously studying the records of the case, the Court finds that
the pieces of evidence relied upon by the R TC in convicting accused-appellant
are insufficient to convict him for Maintenance of a Drug Den under Section
6 Article II of RA 9165. The single and isolated test-buy allegedly conducted
by the PDEA team at accused-appellant's house 38 does not evince that such
house is being "regularly" and "frequently" used as a place where illegal drugs
are sold to and/used by any person. As in the case of Andanar, the sale of the
alleged illegal drugs at the house of accused-appellant only proves an isolated
illegal drug transaction which neither establishes the frequent use of such
house as a drug den nor proves its general reputation as a drug den.

There is no evidence introduced by the prosecution that accused-

appellant's house was used as a lair or hideaway where prohibited drugs were
regularly used or sold. 39

37 Id.
38 See rollo, pp. 24-25 .
39 See the list of exhibits formally offered by the prosecution; id. at 32-33.
Resolution 8 G.R. No. 256839

Moreover, it is well to emphasize that when the PDEA team served the
search warrant, accused-appellant and other occupants of the house were not
committing any crime or were not caught using, administering, selling,
distributing, or storing illegal drugs. In fact, accused-appellant was at the back
of his house cleaning the pigpen when a PDEA agent pointed a gun at him
and immediately handcuffed him. 40 The prosecution witnesses uniformly
testified that accused-appellant was apprehended at the back of his house. 41

Hence, accused-appellant cannot be considered a maintainer of a drug

den.

Further, the supposed corpus delicti was not even established in view
of the clear violation of the chain of custody rule, compromising its integrity.

The chain of custody rule under Section 21 of RA 9165, as amended by

RA 10640, "applies whether the drugs were seized in a buy-bust operation or
pursuant to a search warrant." 42 In fact, in several cases, the Court applied
Section 21, Article II of RA 9165, as amended, even when the illegal drugs
were seized and confiscated by virtue of a search warrant. 43

In drug-related cases, the seized narcotic substance "constitutes the

corpus delicti of the offense and the fact of its existence is vital to sustain a
judgment of conviction beyond reasonable doubt." 44 Hence, to avoid any
unnecessary doubt as to the identity of the dangerous drug, the prosecution
must "show an unbroken chain of its custody and account for each link in the
chain of custody from the moment the drugs is seized up to its presentation in
court as evidence" of the offense. 45 For this purpose, compliance with Section
21 is imperative. Because the incident took place before RA 10640 became
effective on August 7, 2014, 46 the original text of Section 21 47 under RA 9165
applies.
40
Id. at 40.
41
Id. at 35- 36 and 39.
42 Tumabini v. People, G.R. No. 224495, February 19, 2020, 933 SCRA 60.
43 Id. See also Dizon v. People, 850 Phil 518 (2019); Cunanan v. People, 843 Phil. 96 (2018); People v.
Gayoso, 808 Phil. 19 (2017); and Derilo v. People, 784 Phil. 679 (2016) .
44 People v. Malabanan, G.R. No. 241950, April 10, 2019, 901 SCRA 600, citing People v. Suan, 627 Phil.
174, 188 (2010) .
45 People v. Gamboa, 833 Phil. 1055, 1066 (2018), citing People v. Viterbo, 739 Phil. 593 , 601 (2014).
46 Footnote 26 in People v. Gutierrez, G.R. No . 236304, November 5, 2018, 884 SCRA 276.
47 SEC. 21. Custody and Disposition of Confiscated, Sezzed and/or Surrendered Dangerous Drugs, Plant
Sources of Dangerous Drugs, Controlled Precursors und Essential Chemicals, Instruments/
Paraphernalia and/or Laboratory Equipment. - The PDEA shall take charge and have custody of all
dangerous drugs, plant sources of dangerous dmgs, 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;
Resolution 9 G.R. No. 256839

To establish an unbroken link in the chain of custody, the prosecution

must present "testimony about every link in the chain, from the moment the
item was seized to the time it is offered in court as evidence." 48 In order to
secure a conviction in drug cases, the following links must be established in
the chain of custody: ( 1) the seizure and marking, if practicable, of the illegal
drug recovered from the accused by the apprehending officers; (2) the
turnover of the illegal drug seized to the investigating officer; (3) the turnover
by the investigating officer of the illegal drug to the forensic chemist for
laboratory examination; and (4) the turnover and submission of the illegal
drug from the forensic chemist to the court. 49

In the case at bench, while the searching team complied with the
witness requirement under Section 21 of RA 9165, it failed to comply with
the chain of custody rule.

To stress, no chain-of-custody form was accomplished by the PDEA

agents. 50 Thus, there is no documentary evidence of every link in the chain
from the moment the items were picked up to the time they were offered as
evidence as required under Section 21, Article II of RA 9165.

To reiterate, chain of custody means the duly "recorded" movements

and custody of the seized item from the time of confiscation to receipt in the
forensic laboratory to safekeeping to presentation in court for destruction. 51
Such recorded movements shall include the "identity and signature" of the
person who held temporary custody of the seized item. 53 The purpose of the
requirement of chain of custody is to ensure that the integrity and evidentiary
value of the seized items are preserved, so much so that unnecessary doubts
as to the identity of the evidence are removed. 54

Similarly, the PDEA agents failed to comply with the second and fourth
links in the chain of custody rule, viz.: the turnover of the illegal drugs seized
to the investigating officer; and the turnover and submission of the illegal
drugs from the forensic chemist to the court. Records reveal that IOI Sabanal
turned over the seized items to IO 1 Panaguiton, the evidence custodian, but
failed to tum them over to an investigator. 55 Also, there is no statement on
how the seized items were submitted by the forensic chemist to the court for
identification. 56 Evidently, there were gaps in the links of the chain of custody

xxxx
48 Derilo v. People, 784 Phil. 679, 687 (2016), citing People v. Alivio, 664 Phil 565, 577-580 (2011).
49 People v. Gayoso, supra note 43 at 31, citing People v. Nandi, 639 Phil. 134, 144-145 (2010).
50 See the list of exhibits formally offered by the prosecution; rollo, pp. 32-33.
51 People v. Quijano, G.R. No . 247558, February 19, 2020, 933 SCRA 348, citing Sec. l(b), Dangerous
Drugs Board Regulation No . 1 (2002).
53 Id.
54 See People v. Alboka, 826 Phil. 487,502 (2018); People v. Andrada, 833 Phil. 999, 1010 (2018).
55 See rollo, pp. 35 and 38 .
56
See id. at 28 and 45-46.
Resolution G.R. No. 256839

of the seized illegal drugs. The prosecution neither explained the blunders nor
provided contrary evidence that the seized items were properly turned over to
the authorized officers who were part of the chain to avoid any substitution or
contamination.

It is well settled that the chain of custody requirement under Section 21

of RA 9165 is "a matter of substantive law and cannot be brushed aside as a
simple procedural technicality." 57 This is because "[t]he law has been crafted
by Congress as safety precautions to address potential police abuses,
especially considering that the penalty imposed may be life imprisonment." 58

The failure on the part of the prosecution to prove the integrity of

the corpus delicti renders the evidence for the State insufficient to prove the
guilt of accused-appellant. Hence, his acquittal is warranted.

WHEREFORE, the appeal is GRANTED. The Decision dated July 7,

2020, of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CR-HC No. 02948 is REVERSED
and SET ASIDE. Accused-appellant Bobby Lopinay Labestre alias "Barok"
is hereby ACQUITTED of the charge of violation of Section 6, Article II of
Republic Act No. 9165 for failure of the prosecution to prove his guilt beyond
reasonable doubt. He is hereby ORDERED immediately RELEASED from
detention unless he is confined for any other lawful cause.

Let a copy of this Resolution be furnished to the Director General,

Bureau of Corrections, Muntinlupa City for immediate implementation.
Furthermore, the Director General of the Bureau of Corrections is
DIRECTED to report to the Court the action taken within five (5) days from
receipt of this Resolution.

Copies of this Resolution must be furnished the Director General of the

Philippine Drug Enforcement Agency for their information.

Let entry of judgment be issued immediately.

SO ORDERED.

HEN

57 People v. Cabrellos, 837 Phil. 428 (2018).

58 Matabilas v. People, G.R. No. 243615, November 11, 2019, 925 SCRA 347.
Resolution 11 G.R. No. 256839

WE CONCUR:

SAMUE~AN
Associate Justice

ATTESTATION

I attest that the conclusions in the above Resolution had been reached
in consultation before the case was assigned to th t e opinion of the
Court's Division.

.CAGUIOA
e
, zr ivision

CERTIFICATION

Pursuant to Section 13, Article VIII of the Constitution and the Division
Chairperson's Attestation, I certify that the conclusions in the above
Resolution had been reached in consultation before the case was assigned to
the writer of the opinion of the Court's Division.