Republic of the Philippines
REGIONAL TRIAL COURT
Seventh Judicial Region
Branch 13, XXX City
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES,
Plaintiff,
Crim. Case No. R-CEB-16-00984-CR
- versus - For: VIOLATION OF SECTION 7,
ARTICLE II OF R.A. NO. 9165
MCCORMICK B. VILLENA,
Accused.
x x
ORDER
After the prosecution rested its case, on motion of the counsel for the
accused, the defense was granted leave of court to file a demurrer to
evidence.1
At around 11:39 in the morning of 18 February 2022, accused
McCormick B. Villena (McCormick), through counsel, electronically filed a
Demurrer to Evidence in these cases.
On the other hand, the prosecution did not file a comment to the
demurrer to evidence of McCormick.
A demurrer to evidence is “an objection by one of the parties in an
action, to the effect that the evidence which his adversary produced is
insufficient in point of law, whether true or not, to make out a case or sustain
the issue. The party demurring challenges the sufficiency of the whole
evidence to sustain a verdict. The court, in passing upon the sufficiency of
the evidence raised in a demurrer, is merely required to ascertain whether
there is competent or sufficient evidence to sustain the indictment or to
support a verdict of guilt. x x x Sufficient evidence for purposes of frustrating
a demurrer thereto is such evidence in character, weight or amount as will
legally justify the judicial or official action demanded according to the
circumstances. To be considered sufficient therefore, the evidence must
prove: (a) the commission of the crime, and (b) the precise degree of
1
Pls. see Order dated 18 February 2022.
1
participation therein by the accused.”2 Thus, when the accused files a
demurrer, the court must evaluate whether the prosecution evidence is
sufficient enough to warrant the conviction of the accused beyond reasonable
doubt.3
In criminal cases, the grant of the demurrer is tantamount to an
acquittal and the dismissal order may not be appealed because this would
place the accused in double jeopardy.4
In brief, the evidence of the prosecution shows that around 5:00 o’clock
in the afternoon of 19 February 2016, after receiving a go signal from their
confidential informant, members of Crime Investigation and Detection Group
Region 7 (CIDG Region 7) conducted a buy bust operation against Roderick
Pringles @ Dickie or DK (Roderick) and Daniel Money Sangcap at El
Felibusterismo Street, Brgy. Ermita, XXX City. During the briefing, Police
Officer Mocorro was designated as the poseur buyer, while PLT Joseph
Elmer Cornea (PLT Cornea) was assigned as recorder and evidence
custodian.
At the area, the poseur buyer and the confidential informant proceeded
to the place of transaction to buy shabu from the subjects. The transaction
having been consummated and the pre-arranged signal executed – dialing the
cellphone number of the team leader, the other members of the team pounced
into the place of the transaction. Eleven persons, including herein accused
McCormick, were apprehended. McCormick was taken into custody after
trying to escape and after he failed to justify his presence in the area.
Consequently, McCormick was charged for violation of Section 7 of
R.A. No. 9165.
In his demurrer to evidence, McCormick argued that the prosecution
failed to establish all the elements of the criminal offense of knowingly
visiting a drug den under Section 7, Article II of R.A. No. 9165, to wit:
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
(₱l00,000.00) to Five hundred thousand pesos (₱500,000.00) 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
2
Pls. see Gutib v. Court of Appeals, 371 Phil. 293, 300, 305 (1999).
3
Pls. see Bautista v. Cuneta-Pangilinan, G.R. No. 189754, October 24, 2012, 684 SCRA 521, 538.
4
Pls. see People v. Sandiganbayan (Third Division), G.R. No. 174504, March 21, 2011, citing Dayap v.
Sendiong, G.R. No. 177960, January 29, 2009, 577 SCRA 134, 147 [Source: Supreme Court E-Library | Date
created: March 27, 2015
2
(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.
In People vs. Coronel, et al.,5 the Supreme Court ruled that 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 the knowledge.
A drug den is a lair or hideaway where prohibited or regulated drugs
are used in any form or are found.6 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.7
In this case, other than the alleged information that Roderick is
maintaining a drug den,8 no other evidence was presented in support thereof.
There were no acts alleged or evidence presented which would tend to show
that the place was indeed operating as a drug den.
On the other hand, the court finds that the prosecution failed to adduce
proof that McCormick knew the place he visited was a drug den. There was
no showing or an attempt to show that McCormick knew the nature of the
alleged drug den or even that he used drugs in the premises. In fact, during his
testimony, PLT Cornea expressed that he was not able to recover any drugs or
drug paraphernalia from McCormick during the time of his arrest.
“Q: By the way, Sir, were you able to recover any shabu from him?
A: No sir.
Q: Any drug paraphernalia, Sir, were you able to recover from him?
A: No, Sir.”9
Finally, the crime of knowingly visiting a drug den under Section 7,
Article II of R.A. 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 lightly that its elements can be presumed to exist without any
effort to show them. Given the dearth of evidence in this case, this court is
constrained to acquit McCormick of this particular charge.
WHEREFORE, for insufficiency of the evidence presented by the
prosecution in this case, the Demurrer to Evidence of accused McCormick B.
Villena is hereby GRANTED.
5
G.R. No. 214536, March 13, 2017.
6
Pls. see People vs. Rom, G. R. No. 198452, February 19, 2014 [Source: Supreme Court E-Library | Date
created: April 01, 2016].
7
Ibid, citing People vs. Ladjaalam, 395 Phil. 1, 19-20.
8
TSN, October 19, 2021 at page 19.
9
Ibid, at page 17.
3
Accordingly, this case is hereby ordered DISMISSED and accused
McCormick B. Villena is hereby ACQUITTED from criminal liability for
Violation of Section 7, Article II of R.A. No. 9165.
SO ORDERED.
Done in chambers this 7th day of March 2022 in XXX City, Philippines.
MORY A. DOWRY
Presiding Judge
