10/10/2022
DRUG DEN
When I came across this article on my FB wall, I thought it deserved a discussion for the enlightenment of my readers. According to this news article posted by Rappler, a certain PNP Master Sargeant assigned to Drug Enforcement Group was the maintainer of a "drug den." His involvement is based on the finding of his PNP issued identification card. So, here it goes.
What is a drug den?
Section 6 of RA 9165 (Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs of 2002) defines a drug den as 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.
Elements
For an accused to be convicted of maintenance of a drug den, the prosecution must establish that the accused is maintaining a den where any dangerous drug is administered, used, or sold. Two things must be established, thus: (a) that the place is a den - a place where any dangerous drug 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. 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.
Element of regularity
Under this section, it is required that the prosecution must establish 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. The word "regular" means doing the same thing in uniform intervals, or something that is a common occurrence. Thus, a single occurrence of illegal activity in the house of the accused cannot be considered as an element of regularity to justify the house as a drug den. Similarly, a single isolated occasion where one sees another person sniffing shabu inside a residence, even if true, does not automatically convert that residence into a den. The element of regularity is conspicuously absent.
A mere finding of a drug paraphernalia inside the shanty, the driver’s license of the accused, and a photograph cannot be the basis for the conviction under this Section. These items do not prove that the shanty was being used as a drug den. The driver's license and picture only bolster the allegation that the accused owned or occupied the place. It did not establish the fact that the place was a drug den.
However, it was held in one case that the offer of the accused to use the place where he can sniff shabu is enough. The Court declared there was a drug den based on the testimony of the poseur-buyer, who after buying the shabu had told the accused that he wanted to sniff the same to which the latter responded by requiring the former to pay a rental fee of P10.00. The accused, thereafter, allowed the poseur-buyer to enter his house and directed him to proceed to one of the rooms located at the right side of the sala.