CORONEL v PEOPLE

Medel Coronel y Satillan, Ronaldo Permejo y Abarquez, Nestor Villafuerte y Sapin and Joanne Olivarez y Ramos, petitioner, vs. People of the Philippines, respondents 

G.R. No. 214536

March 13, 2017

Facts:

On May 19, 2010, the accused-petitioners were arrested during the operation with a search warrant covering a building at No. 1734 F. Muñoz Street, Pasay City conducted by Philippine Drug Enforcement Agency in coordination with Philippine National Police in which they are found guilty beyond reasonable doubt in violating Article II l, Section 7 and 15 of the R. A. No. 9165 (Comprehensive Dangerous Act of 2002).

The decision states:

a. Finding the accused-petitioners guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the charge violation of Sec. 15, Art. II, R. A. No. 9165 which penalizes an act of using dangerous drugs and are hereby sentence to suffer the penalty of 6 months rehabilitation in government center, and

b. Finding the accused-petitioners guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the charge of violation of Sec 7 which penalizes an act of knowingly visiting a drug den and are hereby suffer the penalty of imprisonment of 12 years and 1 day as minimum to 14 years as maximum and for each of them to pay a fine of P100 000 with subsidiary imprisonment in case of insolvency.

A Motion for Reconsideration was filed by the accused-petitioners before the Court on the ground that the prosecution failed to prove their guilt beyond reasonable doubt.

However, the petitioners do not assail the determination that they violated Art. II, Sec. 15 of the R. A. No. 9165 and so the conviction as regards to this was sustained.

Issue:

Whether or not the prosecution has established that the petitioner knowingly visited a drug den (Violation to Section II).

Held:

No, the drug test results which was the basis of the prosecution to imply that petitioners were aware of the nature of the place as a drug den before visiting it despite that the drug tests were conducted right after their arrest is not justifiable and insufficient.

The prosecution assumed that the petitioners were, in fact, at the alleged drug den before their arrest, however there was no showing of evidence if how long petitioners were at the alleged drug den or how long drugs had been in their system. There is no basis to assume that the petitioners used drugs at the moment immediately before arrest and thus, at the location of the arrest.

Furthermore, there was no attempt to show that the 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 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.

Therefore, the petitioners' Motion for Reconsideration was granted. As a result, petitioners were acquitted of violation to Sec. 7 of the R. A. No. 9165. However, petitioners were guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the charge of violation of Sec. 15 Art. II of the said Republic Act.