Case Summary (G.R. No. 169507)
Seized Evidence and Inventory
The team recovered heat-sealed sachets containing white crystalline substance, aluminum foils, improvised scoops, lighters, containers with white residue, and cash. An inventory was conducted, marked, photographed, and signed in the presence of petitioners, Barangay Kagawad Hernandez, DOJ and media representatives. Specimens underwent laboratory examination; petitioners’ urine tested positive for methamphetamine.
Defense Accounts
Each petitioner denied knowledge of the premises as a drug den. Coronel claimed he was seeking an acquaintance; Permejo and Villafuerte recounted being accosted and forcibly brought to the site by men in PDEA shirts. None admitted voluntary presence or drug use on the premises.
RTC Decision
The RTC found petitioners guilty beyond reasonable doubt of:
a) Section 15 (use of dangerous drugs) – six months’ rehabilitation;
b) Section 7(b) (knowingly visiting a drug den) – 12 years and one day to 14 years’ imprisonment plus ₱100,000 fine.
Court of Appeals Ruling
The CA affirmed the RTC, holding that positive drug tests and presence in the premises supported knowledge of the den’s nature. The appeal was dismissed for lack of merit.
Supreme Court Initial Resolution
On January 11, 2016, the SC denied the petition for certiorari, upholding both convictions under RA No. 9165.
Issues in Reconsideration
Petitioners urged that the SC had not addressed:
- Chain of custody defects;
- Failure to prove the premises was a drug den;
- Lack of proof petitioner’s awareness of the den’s nature.
Chain of Custody and Forensic Compliance
The SC held that Section 21(a) of RA 9165’s IRR was satisfied. Physical inventory, marking, and photography occurred before independent witnesses. The parties stipulated to the chemist’s competency and to the identity of Exhibit “D” as the same specimen examined.
Knowledge of Drug Den Element
The Court emphasized that Section 7(b) requires proof of actual knowledge that the place is a drug den. Positive drug tests alone do not establish where or when consumption occurred, nor petitioners’ awar
Case Syllabus (G.R. No. 169507)
Facts of the Case
- On May 19, 2010, a PDEA team obtained and executed Search Warrant No. 4680(10) for a building at No. 1734 F. Muñoz Street, Barangay 43, Pasay City.
- The enforcement team, coordinated with the PNP Southern Police District, arrived around 2:00 p.m., announced the warrant, and forced entry when occupants attempted to flee.
- Inside the premises they found Joanne Olivarez y Ramos, Erlinda Fetalino, and Benjie Guday; Medel Coronel y Santillan, Ronaldo Permejo y Abarquez, and Nestor Villafuerte y Sapin were apprehended after trying to escape through a window.
- In the presence of barangay officials, prosecutors, and media, officers read the warrant, conducted a search, and seized transparent sachets, aluminum foils, improvised paraphernalia, white crystalline substances, residue, cash, and other items.
- Arrested individuals were Mirandized, photographed, and had the inventory of seized items marked in their presence.
- All four petitioners underwent mandatory drug testing at PDEA headquarters; positive results for methamphetamine hydrochloride (“shabu”) were reported.
Procedural History
- Two informations were filed in the RTC of Pasay City, Branch 231, charging petitioners with violation of Sections 7 and 15, Article II of RA 9165.
- RTC found petitioners guilty beyond reasonable doubt: acquitted co-accused Guday, Balboa, Fetalino; sentenced petitioners to six months’ rehabilitation (Section 15) and 12–14 years’ imprisonment plus fine (Section 7).
- Petitioners appealed to the Court of Appeals (CA), which on April 29, 2014 affirmed the RTC decision in full.
- Petitioners filed a Petition for Review on Cer