36. G.R. No.

214536, March 13, 2017

MEDEL CORONEL Y SANTILLAN, RONALDO PERMEJO Y ABARQUEZ, NESTOR

VILLAFUERTE Y SAPIN AND JOANNE OLIVAREZ Y RAMOS, Petitioners, v. PEOPLE OF
THE PHILIPPINES, Respondent.

Facts: On May 19, 2010, a Philippine Drug Enforcement Agency (PDEA) team meeting
for the implementation of a search warrant6 covering a building at No. 1734 F. Muñoz Street,
Tramo Street, Barangay 43, Zone 6, Pasay City was held.7 The Special Enforcement Group
Team Leader of the Metro Manila Regional Office - Philippine Drug Enforcement Agency, IO2
Randy Paragasa (IO2 Paragasa), designated IO2 Daniel Discaya (IO2 Discaya) as the seizing
officer, and IO1 Jake Edwin Million (IO1 Million) and IO1 Jayson Albao (IO1 Albao) as the
arresting officers.8 The team prepared the pre-operations report form, coordination form,
authority to operate, and inventory of seized property/items form.

The PDEA team coordinated with a team from the Philippine National Police - Southern Police
District in implementing the search warrant.They arrived at the subject building at around 2:00
p.m., knocked on the door, and announced that they had a search warrant.11 A PDEA agent
shouted that somebody had jumped out the window and the door was forced open with a
battering ram.12 IO1 Million and IO1 Albao chased down those who jumped out the window.

Three (3) persons, identified as Olivarez, Erlinda Fetalino, and Benjie Guday, were found inside
the subject building.14 IO2 Discaya read to them the contents of the search warrant.15

Coronel, Permejo, and Villafuerte were apprehended after trying to escape out of the window.16
They were brought back to the subject building, where the contents of the search warrant was
read to them.

Thereafter, Barangay Kagawad Oga Hernandez (Barangay Kagawad Hernandez), Herald

Santos (Santos), Assistant City Prosecutor of Pasay City Angel Marcos (Atty. Marcos), and
DZAR Sunshine Radio Reporter Jimmy Mendoza (Mendoza) arrived, and the search was
conducted in their presence.

During the search, the team recovered, among others, transparent plastic sachets, aluminium
foils, containers of white crystalline substance and white powdery residue, disposable lighters,
improvised plastic scoops, a total amount ofP580.00 in assorted bills, and P165.00 in coins.19

Coronel, Permejo, Villafuerte, and Olivarez were arrested and apprised of their constitutional
rights.20 The confiscated items were also inventoried, photographed, and marked in their
presence, as well as in the presence of the Barangay officials and the Department of Justice
and media representatives.21

The arrested suspects were brought to the PDEA Headquarters for investigation and mandatory
drug testing, together with the seized objects, one of which was identified as shabu. Coronel,
Villafuerte, Permejo, and Olivarez tested positive for shabu.

After trial on the merits, the Regional Trial Court found Coronel, Permejo, Villafuerte, and
Olivarez guilty beyond reasonable doubt of violating Article II, Sections 7 and 15 of Republic Act
No. 9165.

Topic

Chain of custody

Issue

WON the chain of custody of evidence was established

Yes. The requirements under Section 21(a) of the implementing rules and regulations of
Republic Act No. 9165 were complied with.48 It was established during trial that "there was
physical inventory, marking, and taking of photographs of the seized items." This was done in
the presence of petitioners themselves, Barangay Kagawad Hernandez, Santos, Atty. Marcos,
and media representative Mendoza.50 The inventory, which "bore the signature[s] of these
witnesses was presented and formally offered as evidence."51 Although forensic chemist
Richard Allan Mangalip (Mangalip), who examined the specimen subject of this case, was not
presented, this did not detract from the chain of custody.52 The defense agreed to stipulate on
the competency and qualifications of Mangalip and his testimony on the examination of the
specimen subject of the case.53 It was also stipulated that "the specimen subject of [the] case
marked as Exhibit 'D' for the prosecution was the same item subject of a request for laboratory
examination dated April 16, 2009 marked as Exhibit 'B,'" which was "the same specimen . . .
examined by [Mangalip] as reported in the Physical Science Report No. D-192-09S marked as
Exhibit 'C.

The Resolution dated January 11, 2016 also pointed out that in People of the Philippines v.
Mali,55 this Court said that the non-presentation of a forensic chemist during trial would not
cause an acquittal in illegal drug cases.

Topic

Drug Den

Issue

Whether or not the prosecution has established that petitioners knowingly visited a drug den

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 circumstances, including evidence of the general reputation of the house, or
its general reputation among police officers. The prosecution established that appellants knew
that the place is a drug den. All the appellants in the instant case tested positive for
methamphetamine hydrochloride. The drug tests were conducted right after the appellants were
 arrested. Taken together, these facts prove that appellants knowingly visited a drug den on the
day the search warrant was implemented.

There was no attempt to show that petitioners knew the nature of the alleged drug den, or even
that they used drugs in the premises. The petitioners were not found to be in possession of any
drugs. When petitioners were arrested, nobody was found "in the act of using, selling or buying
illegal drugs, nor packaging nor hiding nor transporting the same."There were no acts alleged or
evidence found, which would tend to show a familiarity with the nature of the place as a drug
den.

The crime of knowingly visiting a drug den under Article II, Section 7 of Republic Act No. 9165
carries with it a minimum penalty of imprisonment of 12 years and one (1) day, and a maximum
of20 years. It is not to be taken so lightly that its elements can be presumed to exist without any
effort to show them. Given the dearth of evidence in this case, we are constrained to acquit
petitioners of this particular charge.

However, petitioners do not assail the determination that they violated Article II, Section 15 of
Republic Act No. 9165, and this conviction must be sustained.

WHEREFORE, the motion for reconsideration is hereby GRANTED. The January 11, 2016
Resolution of this Court, and the April 29, 2014 Decision and September 17, 2014 Resolution of
the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CR. No. 35399 are SET ASIDE.

The decision of the Regional Trial Court, Pasay City, Branch 231 dated October 30, 2012 is
AFFIRMED with MODIFICATION, and judgment on petitioners Medel Coronel y Santillan,
Ronaldo Permejo y Abarquez, Nestor Villafuerte y Sapin, and Joanne Olivarez y Ramos is
rendered as follows:

a) ACQUITTING petitioners of violation of Section 7 of Republic Act No. 9165, for

failure of the prosecution to prove their guilt beyond reasonable doubt; and

b) Finding accused GUILTY BEYOND REASONABLE DOUBT of the charge of

violation of Section 15, Article II of Republic Act No. 9165 in Criminal Case No. R-
PSY-10-02058-CR, and hereby sentencing them to suffer the penalty of six (6)
months of rehabilitation in a government center.

Let a copy of this resolution be furnished to the Director of the Bureau of Corrections,
Muntinlupa City for immediate implementation. The Director of the Bureau of Corrections is
directed to report to this Court within five (5) days from receipt of this decision on the action he
has taken. Copies shall also be furnished to the Director General of Philippine National Police
and the Director General of Philippine Drugs Enforcement Agency for their information.

SO ORDERED.