Lopena Vs People Digest

Title: Lopena vs. People [ G.R. No.
234317, May 10, 2021 ]
Facts:
 March 23, 2004: Police Superintendent Agas received a tip about Evardo
Lopena and Justo Algozo allegedly buying shabu. Both were on the police
watch list and had been under surveillance.
 Police proceeded to a Comelec checkpoint where they stopped a tricycle and
identified Lopena and Algozo.
 Algozo appeared pale and trembling.
 SPO3 Auza observed Algozo placing something on the tricycle’s trapal and
recovered seven plastic sachets containing a white crystalline substance.
 Algozo attempted to flee but was apprehended by the police.
 A search of Algozo’s wallet revealed another eleven sachets.
 Evardo was searched and found to have seven sachets hidden in his
underwear.
 The suspects were informed of their rights, taken to the hospital for a medical
check-up, and then brought to the police station.
 March 24, 2004: The sachets tested positive for methamphetamine
hydrochloride (shabu).
Parties' Arguments:
 Prosecution: The prosecution argued that the recovery of the drugs from
Algozo and Evardo was based on a valid checkpoint search and seizure,
asserting that the drugs were found in their possession during a legitimate
operation against illegal drug activities.
 Defense (Lopena and Algozo): The defense argued that the search and
seizure were unlawful as the police had no proper warrant, and that the
evidence obtained was inadmissible due to procedural irregularities.
Ruling of Regional Trial Court:
The Regional Trial Court convicted both accused. In Criminal Case No. 04-1426,
Justo Algozo was found guilty of violating Section 11, Article II of RA 9165 (Illegal
Possession of Dangerous Drugs) and sentenced to an indeterminate prison term of
twelve years and one day to fifteen years, and a fine of P300,000. In Criminal Case
No. 04-1427, Virgilio Evardo was similarly convicted and sentenced. The court
ordered their arrest, except if they filed an appeal and provided a sufficient bond.
Parties' Arguments (on Appeal):
 Defense (Lopena): Lopena argued that the arrest and search were unlawful.
He claimed that the police had no warrant and that the search did not fall
under any recognized exceptions to the warrant requirement.
 Prosecution: The prosecution maintained that the arrest and search were
valid, relying on the doctrine of "stop-and-frisk" and the rule on search of
moving vehicles as exceptions to the warrant requirement.
Ruling of the Court of Appeals:
The Court of Appeals upheld the lower court’s decision, finding that the seizure of
illegal drugs was valid under the doctrine of "stop-and-frisk" and the rule on search
of moving vehicles. It ruled that the search was justified given the circumstances,
including the suspects' inclusion in the watch list and their nervous behavior.
Parties' Arguments (in Petition for Review):
 Petitioner (Evardo Lopena): Evardo argued that the arrest was illegal as the
police did not witness him personally buying drugs. He also contended that the
items recovered were not in plain view and the search did not fall under the
"stop-and-frisk" doctrine. He claimed the evidence was compromised due to
the lack of inventory and photograph and that the police's bias affected their
actions.
 Prosecution: The prosecution argued that the search and seizure were valid,
citing the probable cause based on the suspects' suspicious behavior and
their presence on the drug watch list.
ISSUE:
1. Whether the search, seizure, and arrest conducted by the police officers at the
checkpoint were valid.
2. Whether the identity and integrity of the items allegedly obtained from the
petitioner were guaranteed to justify the conviction.
Ruling of the Regional Trial Court:
The Regional Trial Court had previously upheld the conviction of Lopena and
Algozo, asserting that the search and seizure were valid under the exceptions to the
warrant requirement due to the probable cause provided by the suspects' behavior
and their drug watch list status. However, the Court questioned the validity of this
ruling in light of the arguments raised regarding the evidence's admissibility and the
legality of the search and seizure procedures.
Jurisdiction over the person of the accused: This refers to the court's authority
over the individual being accused, which is generally established through the lawful
arrest of the accused. Since the case involves questions about the legality of the
arrest and subsequent search and seizure, it concerns the court's jurisdiction over
the person of Lopena and Algozo.

Lopena Vs People Digest

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Lopena Vs People Digest

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Lopena Vs People Digest

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Title: Lopena vs. People [ G.R. No.

234317, May 10, 2021 ]

Ruling of Regional Trial Court:

Parties' Arguments (on Appeal):

Parties' Arguments (in Petition for Review):

Ruling of the Regional Trial Court:

You might also like