G.R. No. 214536 March 13, 2017
MEDEL CORONEL y SANTILLAN, RON ALDO PERMEJO y ABARQUEZ, NESTOR VILLAFUERTE y SAPIN and JOANNE OLIVAREZ y RAMOS, Petitioners vs PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Respondent

FACTS

Petitioners were charged with violating Sections 7 (visiting a drug den) and 15 (use of dangerous drugs) of Republic Act No. 9165 . The prosecution alleged that on May 19, 2010, a PDEA team implemented a search warrant at a building in Pasay City. Upon arrival, some individuals attempted to escape through a window. Petitioners Coronel, Permejo, and Villafuerte were apprehended after being chased, while petitioner Olivarez was found inside the premises. A search conducted in the presence of barangay officials, a media representative, and a DOJ prosecutor yielded drug paraphernalia and substances. The petitioners tested positive for methamphetamine hydrochloride (shabu) in a mandatory drug test.
The defense presented a starkly different narrative. Petitioners claimed they did not know each other and were not inside the drug den. Coronel testified he was in the area looking for a friend when accosted by PDEA agents. Permejo claimed he was walking along the street when forcibly taken. Villafuerte and Olivarez alleged they were together walking when similarly apprehended by armed men. They uniformly denied any voluntary presence at the den or any drug use, asserting they were forced to sign documents at the PDEA office.

ISSUE

Whether the prosecution proved the guilt of the petitioners beyond reasonable doubt for violating Sections 7 and 15 of R.A. No. 9165 .

RULING

The Supreme Court acquitted the petitioners of violating Section 7 (visiting a drug den) but sustained their conviction for violating Section 15 (use of dangerous drugs). For the charge under Section 7, the prosecution failed to establish that the petitioners were knowingly and voluntarily inside the den for the purpose of using dangerous drugs. Mere presence, as argued by the defense which claimed they were forcibly brought there, is insufficient to constitute the crime. The evidence did not overcome the presumption of innocence on this specific charge.
However, for the charge under Section 15, the positive drug test results, corroborated by the Chemistry Report, constituted conclusive proof of drug use. The Court emphasized that a positive confirmatory test is prima facie evidence of such use. The petitioners’ defenses of frame-up and denial were deemed weak and self-serving, especially since they failed to present clear and convincing evidence of any ill motive on the part of the arresting officers. The procedural requirements for the custody and handling of the drug evidence, critical in possession cases, are not an element of the crime of drug use under Section 15. Thus, the positive drug test results alone, absent any credible challenge to their integrity, sufficiently supported the conviction for drug use. The penalty of six months rehabilitation in a government center was affirmed.