FACTS:

Appellant Eduardo Cariño was charged with illegal sale of dangerous drugs, maintenance of a drug den, and illegal possession of dangerous drugs. During the trial, the prosecution presented witnesses who testified that on July 30, 2009, SPO2 Eduardo Navarro and his team conducted a surveillance operation near appellant's house and saw him hand money to another individual in exchange for four sachets of shabu. The team then followed appellant to his house and witnessed a "pot session" taking place inside. They arrested appellant and found various drug paraphernalia and sachets of shabu inside the house. The seized items were then submitted for laboratory examination and were found to be positive for methamphetamine hydrochloride. Appellant, on the other hand, testified that he was at home nursing a foot injury when the police arrived. He allowed them to enter his house but denied involvement in the drug activities. The Regional Trial Court (RTC) acquitted appellant of the illegal sale charge but convicted him of maintenance of a drug den and illegal possession of dangerous drugs. The Court of Appeals (CA) affirmed the RTC's decision, prompting appellant to appeal to the Supreme Court.

ISSUES:

1. Whether the appellant can be convicted of maintenance of a drug den.

2. Whether the plain view doctrine is applicable in this case.

3. Whether the warrantless arrest of the appellant was valid.

4. Whether the warrantless arrest of the appellant was valid.

5. Whether the subsequent search in the house of appellant was valid.

6. Whether the general reputation of the house as a drug den was proven.

7. Whether the hearsay testimony of SPO2 Navarro regarding the statement of Valencia is admissible as evidence.

8. Whether the hearsay testimony of SPO2 Navarro should be given evidentiary weight in convicting the appellant for the crime of maintenance of a drug den.

9. Did the prosecution establish justifiable grounds for the noncompliance with the chain of custody rule?

10. Did the prosecution prove that the integrity and evidentiary value of the evidence seized had been preserved?

RULING:

1. The Court is not convinced that the appellant's guilt was proven beyond reasonable doubt. The prosecution failed to establish that the appellant is the maintainer or operator or the owner of the place where the drug den was allegedly maintained.

2. The plain view doctrine is not applicable in this case. The prosecution failed to comply with the requisites of the plain view search, and the witness who allegedly witnessed the drug use inside the appellant's house was not presented.

3. The warrantless arrest of the appellant was not valid. The arresting officer testified that he first arrested the appellant before he saw people using drugs inside the house, which does not comply with the requirements for a valid warrantless arrest.

4. The warrantless arrest of the appellant was not valid. The arresting officer did not have probable cause before the arrest that the appellant was committing or had just committed the crime of maintenance of a drug den.

5. The subsequent search in the house of appellant was also invalid. The exclusionary rule or the doctrine of the fruit of the poisonous tree applies because the arrest itself was invalid.

6. The general reputation of the house as a drug den was not proven. The prosecution failed to present a witness or evidence to establish the general reputation of the house.

7. The hearsay testimony of SPO2 Navarro regarding the statement of Valencia is not admissible as evidence. Hearsay evidence, whether objected to or not, cannot be given probative value.

8. The Court held that the hearsay testimony of SPO2 Navarro cannot be given evidentiary value to convict the appellant for the crime of maintenance of a drug den. The Court emphasized that in criminal cases, the admission of hearsay evidence would be a violation of the accused's constitutional right to confront the witnesses testifying against him and to cross-examine them. A conviction based solely on evidence that violates the constitutional rights of an accused is a nullity, and the court that rendered it acted without jurisdiction in its rendition.

9. The prosecution failed to give any justifiable ground for the noncompliance with the chain of custody rule. The statement of the witness that there was no available media personnel at the time of the inventory is not a sufficient excuse for the noncompliance. The seizure happened during office hours, and the police officers had sufficient opportunity to secure the mandatory witnesses.

10. The entire procedure in the chain of custody was not even discussed in the affidavits of arrest. Due to the failure to preserve the integrity and evidentiary value of the seized drugs, the appellant cannot be convicted of the crime of illegal possession of dangerous drugs.

PRINCIPLES:

• To be convicted of maintenance of a drug den, it must be established that the accused is "maintaining a den" where any dangerous drug is administered, used, or sold.

• The plain view doctrine applies when the law enforcement officer has a prior justification for an intrusion, the discovery of evidence is inadvertent, and it is immediately apparent to the officer that the item observed may be evidence of a crime.

• A valid warrantless arrest under Section 5(a), Rule 113 of the Rules of Court requires that the person being arrested must execute an overt act indicating that he has just committed, is actually committing, or is attempting to commit a crime, and such overt act is done in the presence or within the view of the arresting officer.

• Probable cause is a reasonable ground of suspicion supported by circumstances sufficiently strong to warrant a cautious person's belief that the accused is guilty of the offense charged.

• The exclusionary rule or the doctrine of the fruit of the poisonous tree states that once the primary source of evidence is shown to have been unlawfully obtained, any secondary or derivative evidence derived from it is also inadmissible.

• A drug den may be proven not only by direct evidence but also by proof of facts and circumstances, including evidence of the general reputation of the house.

• Hearsay evidence is not admissible as it does not derive from the witness's own personal knowledge and lacks probative value.

• Hearsay evidence has no probative value unless it falls within the exceptions to the hearsay evidence rule.

• The admission of hearsay evidence in criminal cases violates the constitutional right of an accused to confront and cross-examine witnesses.

• A conviction based on evidence that violates the constitutional rights of an accused is a nullity and cannot have any effect on the liberty of an individual.

• The prosecution must establish justifiable grounds for any noncompliance with the chain of custody rule, and must prove that the integrity and evidentiary value of the evidence seized had been preserved.

• The failure to preserve the integrity and evidentiary value of the seized drugs can result in the acquittal of the accused.