Title
People vs. Galicia y Chavez
Case
G.R. No. 218402
Decision Date
Feb 14, 2018
Appellant acquitted of maintaining a drug den but convicted for illegal possession of shabu and drug paraphernalia; charges for drug use dismissed as absorbed.

Case Summary (G.R. No. 218402)

Arrest and Seizure at Target No. 8

On February 10, 2006, a joint PNP force executed the warrant. At shanty “Target No. 8,” officers presented the warrant to appellant, who attempted flight but was detained. Inside, they found plastic sachets of crystalline substance, weighing scales, lighters, foil tooters, scissors, appellant’s driver’s license and photograph. The sachets and paraphernalia were marked, inventoried, and submitted to the PNP Crime Laboratory; appellant’s urine tested positive for methamphetamine hydrochloride.

Defense Account

Appellant claimed he and his pregnant wife were en route to a hospital when uniformed men compelled them into the compound, forced them face down, and later processed them at Camp Crame without counsel or explanation.

RTC Findings

The Regional Trial Court convicted appellant for:
• Maintaining a drug den (Section 6) – life imprisonment and ₱1,000,000 fine
• Illegal possession of dangerous drugs (Section 11) – 17 years + 1 day to 20 years and ₱400,000 fine
• Possession of drug paraphernalia (Section 12) – 1 year + 1 day to 3 years and ₱10,000 fine
• Use of dangerous drugs (Section 15) – one-year rehabilitation

Court of Appeals Ruling

The Court of Appeals affirmed the RTC, holding that the prosecution sufficiently proved all elements of the charges beyond reasonable doubt.

Issue on Appeal

Whether appellant’s guilt for maintenance of a drug den, possession of dangerous drugs and paraphernalia, and use of dangerous drugs was proven beyond reasonable doubt.

SC on Maintenance of a Drug Den (Section 6)

The Court held that conviction for maintaining a drug den requires proof: (1) the place is a den where drugs are regularly used or sold; (2) the accused maintains it. Evidence here showed only paraphernalia and sachets in appellant’s shanty, without any observation of drug sales or use at that location. Ownership inferences from a driver’s license and photograph were unsupported by seizure or record. The absence of proof that Target No. 8 functioned as a drug den mandated acquittal for Section 6.

SC on Use of Dangerous Drugs (Section 15)

Section 15 penalties do not apply when illegal possession under Section 11 is established. Because appellant was not caught in the act of using but in possession, the use charge was absorbed by possession; thus Criminal Case No. 14823-D was dismissed.

SC on Illegal Possession of Dangerous Drugs and Paraphernalia (Sections 11 & 12)

The Court affirmed convictions for unlawful possession of 1.15 grams of methamphetamine hydrochloride and drug paraphernalia. Witnesses testified to seizure directly from appellant; items were marked (RLB-1 to RLB-8, RLB-10, RLB-12, RLB-13, RLB-17), inventoried, and positiv




...continue reading

Analyze Cases Smarter, Faster
Jur helps you analyze cases smarter to comprehend faster—building context before diving into full texts.