Medel Coronel, et al vs.

People of the Philippines

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).

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.