People vs. Galicia

To convict an accused of maintenance of a drug den under Section 6, Article II of RA 9165, the prosecution must establish with proof beyond reasonable doubt that the accused is maintaining a den where any dangerous drug is administered, used, or sold, and it is not enough that dangerous drugs or drug paraphernalia were found in the place. Additionally, illegal possession of dangerous drugs under Section 11 absorbs the use of dangerous drugs under Section 15 of RA 9165, such that a person may not be charged separately for both offenses when the quantity possessed falls under Section 11.

The appellant, Ramil Galicia y Chavez, was charged with violations of Sections 6, 11, 12, and 15, Article II of Republic Act No. 9165, otherwise known as the Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002. The charges arose from a raid conducted on February 10, 2006, at the Mapayapa Compound along F. Soriano Street, Barangay Palatiw, Pasig City, pursuant to Search Warrant No. 4271(06) issued by the Regional Trial Court of Quezon City. The raid was the culmination of a surveillance operation initiated by a television program's cameraman who reported rampant selling and use of shabu in the compound to the Anti-Illegal Drugs Special Operations Task Force (AIDSOTF).

Amel Tugade, a cameraman of the television program "Mission X," received an anonymous call regarding a shabu tiangge inside the Mapayapa compound along F. Soriano Street, Pasig City, where there was rampant selling and use of shabu. Tugade verified the tip by conducting undercover surveillance and filming drug-related activities inside the compound. On January 30, 2006, Tugade reported the matter to the Anti-Illegal Drugs Special Operations Task Force (AIDSOTF) and showed its officers a 15-minute video of persons selling and using shabu inside shanties within the compound.

After viewing the surveillance footage, Police Senior Inspector Ismael G. Fajardo, Jr. was instructed to conduct further surveillance. PO2 James Nepomuceno was assigned to accompany Tugade inside the compound to take another video and conduct test-buys. On January 31, 2006, they conducted a test-buy of shabu worth ₱300.00, and the following day, another test-buy of ₱100.00 worth of shabu. Both specimens tested positive for methamphetamine hydrochloride. After the reported selling and use of shabu were confirmed through further test-buys, General Marcelo Ele instructed P/Insp. Fajardo, Jr. to apply for a search warrant. On February 9, 2006, Executive Judge Natividad A. Giron-Dizon of the RTC of Quezon City issued Search Warrant No. 4271(06).

On February 10, 2006, around 200 men from the joint forces of the PNP AIDSOTF, Special Operations Unit, Special Action Force, Traffic Management Group, and Scene of the Crime Operative, joined by members of the media and representatives from the DSWD, raided the Mapayapa Compound. More than 300 persons were arrested, 212 of whom were charged with various violations under RA 9165. The compound was divided into different target areas. Assigned to implement the search warrant in Target No. 8 was the team of PO2 Roberto Beascan, SPO2 Roberto Agbalog, P/Insp. Ancieto Pertoza, and P/Supt. Melecio M. Buslig, Jr. When the team entered the target area, persons found inside scampered away. P/Insp. Pertoza presented the search warrant to appellant, who was found inside the shanty designated as Target No. 8 together with his pregnant wife. Appellant attempted to flee but was placed under control.

During the search, the team found appellant's driver's license inside a wallet found in the sala, and noticed a picture of appellant inside the house, although these items were not seized since they were not listed in the search warrant. When interviewed without the presence of counsel, appellant admitted he was the owner of Target No. 8. The team seized from appellant plastic sachets containing crystalline substances, weighing scales, a cellphone, assorted lighters, a wallet containing dollars and coins, aluminum foil, and assorted cutters and scissors. The seized items were marked and inventoried in the Receipt of Property Seized at Target No. 8. The seized items were forwarded to the PNP Crime Laboratory, where results yielded positive for methamphetamine hydrochloride. Forensic Chemist P/Insp. Angel Timario reported that the urine sample taken from appellant tested positive for the presence of dangerous drugs.

For his defense, appellant claimed that in the morning of February 10, 2006, he was with his pregnant wife on their way to a hospital for a check-up when men in uniform who looked like soldiers stopped them and ordered them to go inside the Mapayapa Compound. Inside the compound, appellant was ordered to join a group of men who were arrested and lying face down on the ground. His wife was brought to an area where several other females who were also arrested were gathered. They were all brought to Camp Crame and thereafter processed and charged with various violations under RA 9165.

• Insufficiency of Evidence: The appellant argued that the RTC erroneously convicted him because the prosecution failed to prove his guilt beyond reasonable doubt in all the offenses charged.
• Maintenance of a Drug Den: The appellant contended that the prosecution failed to establish that the shanty where he was found was a place where dangerous drugs were sold or used, and that his driver's license and picture allegedly found inside the shanty could not serve as a valid basis for convicting him of maintenance of a drug den.
• Chain of Custody: The appellant alleged that the police officers failed to comply with the procedure required in the seizure of drugs.

• Establishment of Guilt: The prosecution maintained that the testimonies of the arresting officers who conducted the search established the guilt of appellant beyond reasonable doubt.
• Chain of Custody: The prosecution argued that an unbroken chain of custody over the seized drugs was established — from the seizure and confiscation of the shabu up to the delivery of the same to the crime laboratory and presentation in Court.

• Maintenance of a Drug Den: Whether the appellant is guilty of maintenance of a drug den under Section 6, Article II of RA 9165.
• Use of Dangerous Drugs: Whether the appellant may be charged separately for violation of Section 15 on use of dangerous drugs when he is also charged with illegal possession of dangerous drugs under Section 11 of RA 9165.
• Illegal Possession of Dangerous Drugs and Drug Paraphernalia: Whether the appellant is guilty of illegal possession of dangerous drugs and drug paraphernalia under Sections 11 and 12, Article II of RA 9165.
• Chain of Custody: Whether the prosecution established an unbroken chain of custody over the seized drugs and drug paraphernalia.

• Maintenance of a Drug Den: No. The prosecution failed to prove that appellant was guilty of maintenance of a drug den, as it failed to establish that the shanty where appellant was found was a place where dangerous drugs were sold or used.
• Use of Dangerous Drugs: No. The charge for use of dangerous drugs under Section 15 was dismissed as the same is absorbed by Section 11 on illegal possession of dangerous drugs.
• Illegal Possession of Dangerous Drugs and Drug Paraphernalia: Yes. The prosecution sufficiently established appellant's possession of drugs and drug paraphernalia, as both PO2 Beascan and SPO3 Agbalog categorically declared that they found the drugs and the drug paraphernalia in the possession of the appellant during the implementation of the search warrant.
• Chain of Custody: Yes. The prosecution established an unbroken chain of custody over the seized drugs — from the seizure and confiscation of the shabu up to the delivery of the same to the crime laboratory and presentation in Court.

• Maintenance of a Drug Den: For an accused to be convicted of maintenance of a drug den, the prosecution must establish with proof beyond reasonable doubt that the accused is maintaining a den where any dangerous drug is administered, used, or sold. It must be established that the alleged drug den is a place where dangerous drugs are regularly sold to and/or used by customers of the maintainer of the den. Two things must be established: (a) that the place is a den — a place where any dangerous drug and/or controlled precursor and essential chemical is administered, delivered, stored for illegal purposes, distributed, sold, or used in any form; and (b) that the accused maintains the said place. It is not enough that the dangerous drug or drug paraphernalia were found in the place. In this case, the prosecution's witnesses merely testified that when they entered Target No. 8, they found drug paraphernalia inside the shanty and sachets of crystalline substance in the person of the appellant. There was nothing in evidence that would indicate that the arresting officers saw that dangerous drugs were being sold and/or used at Target No. 8. The appellant's driver's license and picture allegedly found inside the shanty do not prove that the shanty was being used as a drug den; they only bolster the allegation of appellant's ownership or occupation of the shanty. Moreover, these items were not offered in evidence and were not part of the records of the case. The Court will not convict an accused based on evidence that does not appear on the record of the case. Mere assumptions or conjectures cannot substitute the required quantum of evidence in criminal prosecution.

• Use of Dangerous Drugs: Section 15, Article II of RA 9165 provides that the Section shall not be applicable where the person tested is also found to have in his/her possession such quantity of any dangerous drug provided for under Section 11 of the Act, in which case the provisions stated therein shall apply. This means that appellant may not be charged separately for violation of Section 11 on illegal possession of dangerous drugs and of Section 15 on use of dangerous drugs since the provisions of Section 11 shall apply. Illegal possession of dangerous drugs absorbs the use of dangerous drugs. This is especially true in this case since appellant was not caught in the act of using drugs; instead, he was caught in the act of possessing drugs and drug paraphernalia.

• Illegal Possession of Dangerous Drugs and Drug Paraphernalia: The prosecution sufficiently established appellant's possession of drugs and drug paraphernalia. Both PO2 Beascan and SPO3 Agbalog categorically declared that they found the drugs and the drug paraphernalia in the possession of the appellant during the course of the implementation of the search warrant. SPO2 Agbalog testified that he confiscated the eight sachets of shabu from the appellant whom he identified in open court. PO2 Beascan testified that aside from the plastic sachets of shabu, they also found drug paraphernalia consisting of aluminum foil used for heating shabu, improvised aluminum foil tooters used for inhaling the smoke emitted when shabu is heated, disposable lighters, and weighing scales.

• Chain of Custody: The records show that the prosecution was able to establish an unbroken chain of custody over the seized drugs — from the seizure and confiscation of the shabu up to the delivery of the same to the crime laboratory and presentation in Court. The police officer properly preserved the integrity and evidentiary value of the seized items when SPO2 Agbalog and PO2 Beascan seized and marked the sachets of shabu with the markings "RLB-1 to RLB-8" and "RLB-9-RLB17" for the aluminum foil tooters. Thereafter, the items were inventoried under the Receipt of Property Seized. PO2 Beascan then delivered the items to the PNP Crime Laboratory for examination. In the Initial Laboratory Report No. D-122-06 dated February 11, 2006 by Forensic Chemist P/Insp. Alejandro C. De Guzman, "RLB-1" to "RLB-8" as well as the aluminum foil tooters marked as "RLB-10", "RLB-12", "RLB-13", and "RLB-17" tested positive for the presence of Methamphetamine Hydrochloride. Finally, the same sachets and aluminum foil tooters were presented and turned over to the court where SPO2 Agbalog declared that the said items were the same items that were seized from the appellant. The failure of the prosecution to present the forensic chemist to testify on how the seized items were handled and taken into custody is not fatal to the admissibility of the seized drugs and its paraphernalia. Not all people who came into contact with the seized drugs are required to testify in court; as long as the chain of custody of the seized drug was clearly established not to have been broken and that the prosecution did not fail to identify properly the drugs seized, it is not indispensable that each and every person who came into possession of the drugs should take the witness stand. What is of utmost importance is the preservation of the integrity and the evidentiary value of the seized drugs.

• Maintenance of a Drug Den (Section 6, RA 9165) — To convict an accused of maintenance of a drug den, the prosecution must establish with proof beyond reasonable doubt that the accused is maintaining a den where any dangerous drug is administered, used, or sold. Two things must be established: (a) that the place is a den — a place where any dangerous drug and/or controlled precursor and essential chemical is administered, delivered, stored for illegal purposes, distributed, sold, or used in any form; and (b) that the accused maintains the said place. It is not enough that dangerous drugs or drug paraphernalia were found in the place; there must also be a clear showing that the accused is the maintainer or operator or the owner of the place where the dangerous drug is used or sold. In this case, the prosecution failed to establish that dangerous drugs were being sold or used inside the shanty located at Target No. 8.

• Absorption of Use of Dangerous Drugs by Illegal Possession (Sections 11 and 15, RA 9165) — Section 15 on use of dangerous drugs does not apply when a person charged with violation of Section 15 is also found to have in his/her possession such quantity of any dangerous drug provided for under Section 11 of the Act, in which case the provisions stated therein shall apply. Illegal possession of dangerous drugs absorbs the use of dangerous drugs. This is especially true when the accused was not caught in the act of using drugs but was caught in the act of possessing drugs and drug paraphernalia.

• Chain of Custody of Seized Drugs — The prosecution must establish an unbroken chain of custody over seized drugs — from the seizure and confiscation up to the delivery to the crime laboratory and presentation in Court — to preserve the integrity and evidentiary value of the seized items. Not all people who came into contact with the seized drugs are required to testify in court; as long as the chain of custody was clearly established not to have been broken and the prosecution did not fail to identify properly the drugs seized, it is not indispensable that each and every person who came into possession of the drugs should take the witness stand.

• "To convict an accused under this section, the prosecution must show that the place he is maintaining is a den, dive, or resort where dangerous drug is used or sold in any form. Hence, two things must be established, thus: (a) that the place is a den - a place where any dangerous drug and/or controlled precursor and essential [chemical] is administered, delivered, stored for illegal purposes, distributed, sold, or used in any form; (b) that the accused maintains the said place. Hence, it is not enough that the dangerous drug or drug paraphernalia were found in the place. More than a finding that dangerous drug is being used thereat, there must also be a clear showing that the accused is the maintainer or operator or the owner of the place where the dangerous drug is used or sold." — This passage, quoted from the Court of Appeals, articulates the two-part test for conviction of maintenance of a drug den and was adopted by the Supreme Court as the controlling standard for Section 6, RA 9165.

• "It is clear from the above that the Section 15 does not apply when a person charged with violation of Section 15, Article II, RA 9165 on use of dangerous drugs, is also found to have possession of such quantity of drugs provided under Section 11 of the same law. This means that appellant may not be charged separately of violation of Section 11 on illegal possession of dangerous drugs and of Section 15 on use of dangerous drug since it is clear from the above that the provisions of Section 11 shall apply. Illegal possession of dangerous drugs absorbs the use of dangerous drugs." — This passage states the absorption doctrine under RA 9165, holding that illegal possession of dangerous drugs absorbs the offense of use of dangerous drugs.

• "Further, not all people who came into contact with the seized drugs are required to testify in court. There is nothing in Republic Act No. 9165 or in any rule implementing the same that imposes such requirement. As long as the chain of custody of the seized drug was clearly established not to have been broken and that the prosecution did not fail to identify properly the drugs seized, it is not indispensable that each and every person who came into possession of the drugs should take the witness stand." — This passage, quoted from People vs. Padua, establishes that the failure to present the forensic chemist is not fatal to admissibility as long as the chain of custody is unbroken and the integrity of the seized drugs is preserved.

• People vs. Padua, 639 Phil. 235, 251 (2010) — Cited as controlling authority for the proposition that not all persons who came into contact with seized drugs are required to testify in court, and that the failure to present the forensic chemist is not fatal to admissibility as long as the chain of custody was clearly established and the integrity of the seized drugs was preserved.

• Section 6, Article II, RA 9165 — The provision defining and penalizing maintenance of a den, dive, or resort. The Court applied the two-part test requiring proof that the place is a den and that the accused maintains it, and acquitted the appellant for failure of the prosecution to prove that dangerous drugs were sold or used in the shanty.
• Section 11, Article II, RA 9165 — The provision penalizing possession of dangerous drugs. The Court applied this provision in affirming the appellant's conviction for illegal possession of dangerous drugs, and held that it absorbs the offense of use of dangerous drugs under Section 15.
• Section 12, Article II, RA 9165 — The provision penalizing possession of equipment, instrument, apparatus, and other paraphernalia for dangerous drugs. The Court applied this provision in affirming the appellant's conviction for possession of drug paraphernalia.
• Section 15, Article II, RA 9165 — The provision penalizing use of dangerous drugs. The Court held that this Section does not apply when the person tested is also found to have in his/her possession such quantity of any dangerous drug provided for under Section 11, in which case the provisions of Section 11 shall apply.
• Section 3(1), RA 9165 — The provision defining "Den, Dive or Resort" as a place where any dangerous drug and/or controlled precursor and essential chemical is administered, delivered, stored for illegal purposes, distributed, sold, or used in any form. The Court used this definition in applying the elements of maintenance of a drug den.

Chief Justice Maria Lourdes P.A. Sereno (Chairperson), Associate Justice Teresita J. Leonardo-De Castro, Associate Justice Samuel R. Martires (on official leave), and Associate Justice Noel Gimenez Tijam concurred in the decision.

N/A — No dissenting opinion was noted in the provided case text.