SECOND DIVISION
[G.R. No. 204237. November 17, 2021.]
MA. ROSA CECILIA CANDAO y TORRES, petitioner,vs. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, respondent.
NOTICE
Sirs/Mesdames :
Please take notice that the Court, Second Division, issued a Resolution dated 17 November 2021 which reads as follows:
"G.R. No. 204237 (Ma. Rosa Cecilia Candao y Torres v. People of the Philippines). — To sustain a conviction under Section 7 (b) of Republic Act (R.A.) No. 91651for visiting a drug den, the prosecution must prove that the accused knew of the nature of said place, and knowingly visited the same.
This resolves the petition for review on certiorari2 under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court filed by petitioner Ma. Rosa Cecilia T. Candao (Candao), praying for the reversal of the July 23, 2012 Decision 3 and October 25, 2012 Resolution 4 of the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. CR No. 33626. The CA affirmed the December 19, 2007 Decision 5 of the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Pasig City, Branch 154, convicting Candao of violation of Section 7 (b), Article II of R.A. No. 9165.
Antecedents
In three separate Informations 6 dated February 15, 2006, Candao was charged with violation of Sections 7, 13, and 15, Article II of R.A. No. 9165. The accusatory portion for the charge of violation of Section 7 reads as follows:
That on or about February 10, 2006, in the City of Pasig, Philippines, and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the above-named accused, did then and there, willfully, unlawfully, and feloniously visit a drug den located at the compound along F. Soriano Street, Barangay Palatiw, Pasig City, knowing fully well that it is a place where dangerous drugs and/or controlled precursors and essential chemicals are administered, delivered, stored for illegal purposes, distributed, sold or used in any form, in violation of the above-cited law.
CONTRARY TO LAW. 7
Candao pleaded not guilty. Trial on the merits ensued thereafter.
The antecedent facts reveal that members of the Philippine National Police (PNP) received confirmed reports that an unnumbered compound at F. Soriano Street, Palatiw, Pasig City, known as the Mapayapa compound, was being used as a marketplace for buying, selling, and/or using shabu. 8 Acting on the reports, at around 10:30 in the morning of February 10, 2006, combined elements of around 200 officers from the different offices of the PNP, accompanied by members of the Department of Social Welfare and Development, media men, and medical teams, enforced a search warrant and conducted a raid at the Mapayapa compound. 9
During the raid, the area outside of the Mapayapa compound was cordoned off. Thus, all persons who were within the cordoned area were apprehended and taken inside the compound. 10 Thereafter, specified teams searched all 68 shanties in the compound. Police Officer (PO) 2 Rolando Ramos (PO2 Ramos), PO1 Gilbert Isoli (PO1 Isoli), PO3 John Daludado (PO3 Daludado), and PO3 Jose Serrona (PO3 Serrona) proceeded to the shanty tagged as Target No. 11. They were assisted by members of the PNP Special Action Force and several barangay tanods. 11 CAIHTE
Upon reaching Target No. 11, PO2 Ramos knocked on the door, but no one answered. Thus, PO2 Ramos and PO1 Isoli kicked the door open. 12 Then, they saw Candao with five other persons standing closely around a table. PO2 Ramos further noticed three heat-sealed plastic sachets of a white crystalline substance, four rolls and 17 strips of aluminum foil, and nine disposable lighters, lying on the table. 13 The officers arrested Candao and the other five persons. Meanwhile, PO3 Daludado gathered the paraphernalia on the table. He marked the plastic sachets with the letters "FGA," which represented the initials of the owner of Target No. 11. After which, PO3 Serrona prepared an inventory of the seized items. However, Candao and the other persons arrested refused to sign said inventory. 14
Thereafter, the officers delivered the seized items to Police Senior Inspector Alejandro De Guzman of the PNP Crime Laboratory. Upon examination, the sachets yielded positive for in methylamphetamine hydrochloride or shabu, a dangerous drug. Candao was subjected to a drug dependency test, and her urine sample tested positive for shabu. She was then charged with violation of Sections 7, 13, 14, and 15, Article II of R.A. No. 9165. 15
On the other hand, Candao vehemently denied the charge leveled against her. She related that in the morning of February 10, 2006, she was at a store near the Mapayapa compound to collect money from a certain Elsa, who owed her. However, she could not find Elsa, so she decided to look for the latter somewhere within the Mapayapa area. Suddenly, she heard people shouting and saw several armed men, one of whom ordered her to enter the compound without explaining why. Scared and confused, she obeyed the directive, and went inside the compound where she saw several people lying face down on the ground. 16 To her surprise, the operatives later brought her to Camp Crame where she was investigated and charged. She insisted that it was her first time to enter the Mapayapa compound, and that she did not know that said place was being used as a drug den. 17
Ruling of the RTC
On December 19, 2007, the RTC rendered a Decision convicting Candao of violation of Section 7, Article II of R.A. No. 9165. However, the RTC acquitted Candao of the other charges. The RTC ruled as follows:
WHEREFORE, in view of the foregoing, judgment is rendered as follows:
xxx xxx xxx
In the cases for violation of Section 7, R.A. 9165 (visiting a den)
The following accused, namely:
xxx xxx xxx
Ma. Rosa Cecilia T. Candao — Crim. Case No. 14731-D
xxx xxx xxx
are hereby found GUILTY beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of violation of Section 7 of R.A. 9165 as charged against them in the Information and each of them is sentenced to suffer the indeterminate penalty of TWELVE (12) YEARS and ONE (1) DAY to FOURTEEN (14) YEARS and ONE (1) DAY of imprisonment. They are also ordered to pay a fine of Php100,000.00 each.
xxx xxx xxx
SO ORDERED. 18
Aggrieved, Candao filed an appeal.
Ruling of the CA
In a Decision dated July 23, 2012, the CA affirmed 19 Candao's conviction for violation of Section 7, Article II of R.A. No. 9165. The CA classified Target No. 11, where Candao was arrested, as a den for shabu and other dangerous drugs. The CA explained that the existence of drugs and drug paraphernalia at Target No. 11, coupled with the unexplained presence of Candao thereat in the company of persons unrelated to her, prove that she visited Target No. 11 to engage in a drug session. The CA rejected Candao's defense that she was only forcibly brought inside the compound. Furthermore, the CA opined that Candao's positive drug test proves that she went to Target No. 11 to buy and to partake of shabu.
The dispositive portion of the CA Decision reads:
WHEREFORE, premises considered, the two (2) appeals are DENIED. The Decision dated December 19, 2007 of the Regional Trial Court, Branch 154 of Pasig City is AFFIRMED in toto.
SO ORDERED. 20
Dissatisfied with the ruling, Candao sought reconsideration, which was denied by the CA in its Resolution 21 dated October 25, 2012.
Undeterred, Candao filed the instant petition for review on certiorari. 22
Issue
The crux of the case is whether or not Candao is guilty beyond reasonable doubt for violation of Section 7 (b), Article II of R.A. No. 9165.
Seeking her exoneration from the charge, Candao primarily claims that the prosecution failed to prove the charge for visiting a drug den beyond reasonable doubt. She laments that the CA erred in classifying Target No. 11 as a drug den. She points out that there were around 68 shanties in the Mapayapa compound, and thus, it is impossible to conclude that all the shanties were in fact drug dens. 23 Likewise, she alleges that the prosecution failed to establish that Target No. 11 was habitually used as a venue for drug use. She urges that the alleged existence of dangerous drugs and other drug paraphernalia at Target No. 11 does not automatically prove that said place is a drug den. She even harps on PO1 Isoli's testimony that when he kicked the door, he did not see any evidence on the table. Likewise, she asserts that no less than the prosecution witnesses admitted that she and the other persons arrested were merely standing inside Target No. 11, and were not doing anything. 24 DETACa
Moreover, Candao contends that the presumption of regularity in the performance of official duty cannot prevail over the presumption of her innocence. 25 She bewails that the police officers abused their authority in executing the search warrant. 26 She claims that the search was made without the presence of barangay representatives from Mapayapa compound, as required in the warrant, or any of the accused and a member of the Department of Justice (DOJ), as mandated in Section 21, Article II of R.A. No. 9165. 27 She stresses that the police officers illegally searched the premises without any barangay representative or anyone from the persons allegedly present and arrested at the time of the search. 28 Thus, Candao seeks the exclusion of the evidence collected from Target No. 11. 29
On the other hand, the People, through the Office of the Solicitor General (OSG), counters that a place being "habitually" used as a drug den is not an element of Section 7, Article II of R.A. No. 9165. 30 The OSG maintains that said provision merely requires that the accused "knowingly" visited the drug den. 31 Additionally, the OSG maintains that Target No. 11 is a shabu den and that Candao knew of the nature of the said place, considering that (i) Candao was in the company of other persons unrelated to her; (ii) Target No. 11 was not her house, or the house of the other persons arrested; (iii) Candao's presence thereat was not justifiably explained; 32 (iv) drugs and other paraphernalia were recovered from the scene; and (v) Candao tested positive for shabu use. 33
Furthermore, the OSG retorts that the search warrant was enforced in accordance with the rules, and thus all the evidence recovered pursuant thereto are admissible in court. 34 It urges that the warrant was implemented in the presence of Candao and the other accused who were then standing around the table when the evidence was recovered. 35 Alternatively, it explains that even assuming that there was an irregularity in the implementation of the search warrant, the seized evidence is still admissible as they were discovered in plain view lying on the surface of the table. 36
Ruling of the Court
The petition is impressed with merit.
The prosecution failed to establish
Section 7 (b), Article II of R.A. No. 9165 penalizes the act of knowingly visiting a drug den as follows:
Section 7. Employees and Visitors of a Den, Dive or Resort. — The penalty of imprisonment ranging from twelve (12) years and one (1) day to twenty (20) years and a fine ranging from One hundred thousand pesos (P100,000.00) to Five hundred thousand pesos (P500,000.00) shall be imposed upon:
(a) Any employee of a den, dive or resort, who is aware of the nature of the place as such; and
(b) Any person who, not being included in the provisions of the next preceding, paragraph, is aware of the nature of the place as such and shall knowingly visit the same. (Emphasis supplied)
Relatedly, a den is defined 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." 37 Consequently, the essential elements for conviction for visiting a drug den are that (i) the accused is not an employee of the den, dive or resort; (ii) that he or she is aware of the nature of the place; and (iii) that despite such knowledge, he or she knowingly visited the same. It is imperative to prove that the accused knew that the place he/she visited is a drug den.
Unfortunately, the prosecution failed to prove the second and third elements for violation of Section 7 (b) beyond reasonable doubt. In the same manner, the CA, in affirming the conviction, merely speculated and surmised on Candao's knowledge based on the following pieces of evidence, (i) the testimonies of the police officers that at the time of the raid, they confiscated drugs and drug paraphernalia; (ii) that Candao was in the company of five other persons totally unrelated to her; (iii) that the place was not her house, or the residence of any of the persons arrested therein; (iv) their presence inside Target No. 11 was not justified; 38 and (v) that Candao tested positive for shabu use. 39
First of all, it bears noting that the testimonies of the police officers regarding the presence of drugs and drug paraphernalia in Target No. 11 are conflicting, and thus, unreliable. On the one hand, PO2 Ramos related that after kicking the door of Target No. 11, he saw Candao and five others standing on the side of the table, and when they moved, he saw drugs and drug paraphernalia lying on the table. On the other hand, PO1 Isoli who assisted PO2 Ramos in kicking the door of Target No. 11, related that he did not see any drugs lying on the table. The huge disparity and variance in the police officers' testimonies cast serious doubt on the existence of drugs and drug paraphernalia at the scene.
Likewise, it is interesting to note that both officers uniformly stated that after they barged in, Candao and the other persons were merely standing on the side. Not a single officer confirmed that Candao or any of her supposed cohorts were in possession of drugs, using drugs or selling drugs. aDSIHc
Moreover, the CA tenuously declared that Candao's company alongside persons unrelated to her at a place which does not belong to her, or any of her companions, as well as their failure to explain their presence at Target No. 11, show that they visited said place to engage in a drug session. 40 These circumstances do not, by any stretch of the imagination establish the elements for visiting a drug den, or prove that Target No. 11 is in fact a drug den, and that Candao knowingly visited the same. To reiterate, a den is 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. None of these illegal acts were shown to have been taking place at the time of Candao's arrest.
Significantly, in Coronel v. People, 41 the Court underscored the prosecution's duty to prove that the accused were aware of the nature of the purported drug den or that they used drugs in the premises:
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. 42 (Citations omitted)
Worse, the prosecution failed to prove the general reputation of Target No. 11 as a drug den. The prosecution's vague intimation that the police officers received tips that the Mapayapa compound was used as a marketplace for selling and using drugs is not sufficient to prove the general reputation of the place, more particularly that Target No. 11 is a drug den. Lest it be forgotten, there were 68 shanties within the Mapayapa compound. Indeed, no iota of evidence was presented to establish that Target No. 11 is a place where dangerous drugs are regularly sold, and or being used by customers.
Equally noteworthy, the fact that Candao tested positive for shabu use does not ipso facto prove her knowledge that Target No. 11 is a drug den. Remarkably, this flawed premise was rejected in Coronel v. People: 43
Before a person may be convicted under the foregoing provision, it must be shown that he or she knew that the place visited was a drug den, and still visited the place despite this knowledge.
The Court of Appeals relied only on drug test results to conclude that the petitioners were aware of the nature of the subject house as a drug den:
'Contrary to accused-appellants' claim that they had no knowledge of the nature of the drug den, records reveal otherwise. In the Chemistry Report No. PDEA-DTOI0-148 to 153, the urine specimens taken from accused-appellants yielded "positive results for the presence of Methamphetamine[.]" Obviously, accused-appellants cannot claim that they have no knowledge of the nature of said drug den when they were positively identified by a police officer as present in the premises, and their drug test results indicate that their urine samples contain Methamphetamine, a dangerous drug. Moreover, it is well-established that the defense of denial, in the absence of convincing evidence, is invariably viewed with disfavor by the courts for it can be easily concocted, especially in cases involving the Dangerous Drugs Act.
Similarly, the Regional Trial Court ratiocinated:
With regard to the charge for Violation of Section 7 of Republic Act No. 9165, to render a verdict of conviction, it is not enough that the integrity and evidentiary value of the specimen were preserved and that the presumption of regularity of performance of duties was upheld. It is primordial for the prosecution to establish the allegation that the accused knowingly visit[ed] a drug den.
xxx xxx xxx
As for accused Medel Coronel y Santillan, Ronaldo Permejo y Abarquez, Nestor Villafuerte y Sapin and Joanne Olivarez y Ramos a.k.a. Joanne Olivare, with the integrity and evidentiary value of the evidence preserved, the presumption of regularity in the performance of duties upheld and their respective drug tests yielding positive results to existence of Methamphetamine, a dangerous drug, the Court is convinced that evidence for the prosecution has established the allegations of the information beyond reasonable doubt, thus, sustain a verdict of conviction.'
Likewise, respondent claims that the prosecution has established that petitioners knew that the place was a drug den, based solely on the positive drug test results:
'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.'
Respondent apparently maintains that because the petitioners' drug, tests were conducted right alter their arrest, it was proven that drugs were used at the drug den itself. Moreover, the use of drugs at a drug den automatically implies that the drug users were aware of the nature of the place as a drug den before visiting it.
This position is untenable.
True, the drug test results sufficiently proved that petitioners had used drugs some time before their arrest. However, assuming that petitioners were, in fact, at the alleged drug den before their arrest, there was no showing how long petitioners were at the alleged drug den, or how long the drugs had been in their system. In other words, there is no basis to assume that petitioners used drugs at the moment immediately before arrest, and thus, at the location of the arrest.
Assuming that persons who test positive for drugs used them at the place of arrest is not sufficient to show that they were aware of the nature of the suspected drug den before visiting it, absent any other circumstantial evidence." 44 (Citations omitted and emphasis supplied)
Accordingly, the fact that Candao tested positive for drug use does not prove that she used drugs immediately prior to her arrest, and thus, at Target No. 11. Moreover, even assuming arguendo that she ingested drugs at Target No. 11, this fact alone is not sufficient to show that she was indeed aware that said place is a drug den before visiting it. ETHIDa
Verily, to support a conviction, the prosecution must prove each and every element of the offense beyond reasonable doubt, which the prosecution failed to do. It bears stressing that when a person's life and liberty are at stake, the courts must exercise utmost circumspection and ensure that each and every element of the crime is established. 45 To this end, the warning in Coronel v. People, 46 strongly reverberates:
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 of 20 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. 47
The presumption of regularity in the
Candao's accusation that the search warrant was illegally implemented was not sufficiently proven. Specifically, she bewails the fact that (i) in a cavalier fashion, the police officers kicked the door of Target No. 11 and announced their purpose; (ii) that the warrant was implemented without the presence of the accused, barangay, media or DOJ representatives in violation of Section 21, Article II of R.A. No. 9165; and (iii) that the only persons present at the time of the implementation of the warrant were the members of the raiding team. 48 According to her, these abuses during the execution of the search warrant render the seized evidence inadmissible. In turn, without the drugs and paraphernalia, she may not be convicted of visiting a drug den. 49
Essentially, the Rules of Evidence lays a disputable presumption that official duty has been regularly performed. This presumption stands unless contradicted and overcome by other evidence. 50 Unfortunately, Candao failed to present proof that the police officers illegally implemented the search warrant. Rather, the evidence shows that the police officers entered the shanty, equipped with a valid search warrant, which they implemented in the presence of Candao and the other persons arrested, who were standing at the table. The police officers explained that they kicked the door of Target No. 11 open, because the same was locked. Notably, an officer who is refused admittance to the place of the directed search, upon giving notice of his purpose and authority, may break open any outer or inner door or window of a house or any part of a house or anything therein to execute the warrant. 51 Candao herself admitted that the officers kicked the door of Target No. 11 after announcing their purpose. Likewise, the warrant was executed in the presence of Candao and the other persons arrested.
Similarly, Candao's argument that the police officers failed to comply with Section 21, Article II of R.A. No. 9165 while implementing the warrant was not proven. Besides, said provision pertains to rules regarding the marking, seizure and custody of the drugs, which Candao did not question at all.
Notwithstanding the foregoing, Candao must still be acquitted due to the prosecution's failure to prove beyond reasonable doubt all the elements for the charge of visiting a drug den. To stress, the gravamen of violation of Section 7 (b), Article II of R.A. No. 9165 is that the accused knew the nature of the drug den and knowingly visited the same.
In fine, Candao enjoys the presumption of innocence enshrined in the Bill of Rights. As such, the State is bound to prove her guilt beyond reasonable doubt. Her conviction may not rest on mere speculations and surmises. Thus, for failure to prove that Candao knowingly visited Target No. 11 as a drug den, her acquittal follows as a matter of course. cSEDTC
WHEREFORE, the petition is hereby GRANTED. The July 23, 2012 Decision and the October 25, 2012 Resolution of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CR No. 33626 are REVERSED and SET ASIDE. Petitioner Ma. Rosa Cecilia T. Candao is ACQUITTED of the charge of violation of Section 7 (b), Article II of Republic Act No. 9165.
Let a copy of this Resolution be FURNISHED to the Director General of the Philippine National Police and the Director General of the Philippine Drug Enforcement Agency for their information.
Let entry of judgment be issued immediately.
SO ORDERED." (Perlas-Bernabe, J., on official leave;Hernando, J. designated Acting Chairperson per Special Order No. 2855 dated November 10, 2021.)
By authority of the Court:
(SGD.) TERESITA AQUINO TUAZONDivision Clerk of Court
Footnotes
1. AN ACT INSTITUTING THE COMPREHENSIVE DANGEROUS DRUGS ACT OF 2002; REPEALING REPUBLIC ACT NO. 6425, OTHERWISE KNOWN AS THE DANGEROUS ACT OF 1972, AS AMENDED, PROVIDING FUNDS THEREFOR, AND FOR OTHER PURPOSES.
2.Rollo, pp. 3-19.
3.Id. at 22-31; penned by Associate Justice Manuel M. Barrios, with Associate Justices Remedios A. Salazar-Fernando and Normandie B. Pizarro, concurring.
4.Id. at 32-33.
5.Id. at 26.
6.Id. at 23.
7.Id. at 23-24.
8.Id. at 5.
9.Id. at 24.
10.Id. at 5.
11.Id. at 24.
12.Id. at 43.
13.Id. at 48.
14.Id. at 25.
15.Id. at 25.
16.Id. at 7.
17.Id. at 26.
18.Id. at 22-23.
19.Id. at 22-31.
20.Id. at 30.
21.Id. at 32-33.
22.Id. at 3-19.
23.Id. at 10.
24.Id. at 10-11.
25.Id. at 12.
26.Id. at 14.
27.Id. at 13.
28.Id.
29.Id. at 15.
30.Id. at 46.
31.Id. at 47.
32.Id. at 48.
33.Id. at 49.
34.Id. at 46.
35.Id. at 49-50.
36.Id. at 50.
37. REPUBLIC ACT NO. 9165, Article I, Section 3 (l).
38.Id. at 28-29.
39.Id. at 29.
40.Id. at 28-29.
41. 807 Phil. 207 (2017).
42.Id. at 219.
43.Id.
44.Id. at 217-219.
45.Quijano v. People, G.R. No. 202151, February 10, 2021.
46.Supra note 38.
47.Id. at 219.
48.Rollo, pp. 13-14.
49.Id. at 15.
50. RULES OF EVIDENCE, Rule 131, Section (m).
51. RULES OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE, Rule 126, Section 7.