RA 9165 Section 6 (Maintaining a Drug Den): Evidence Requirements and Case Workflow in the Philippines

Republic Act No. 9165 (Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002), as amended

What Section 6 Punishes—And Why It’s Unique

Section 6 penalizes any person who maintains a den, dive, or resort where dangerous drugs are used, sold, delivered, or administered. Unlike Section 5 (sale) or Section 11 (possession), the gravamen here is maintaining a place for drug activity—i.e., exercising control, management, or supervision over the premises for that purpose.

Statutory definitions (Sec. 3)

Den/dive/resort: any place habitually or purposefully used for the use, distribution, storage, sale, delivery, or administration of dangerous drugs.
Dangerous drugs include, among others, methamphetamine hydrochloride (shabu), marijuana, MDMA, etc.
Drug paraphernalia: equipment, devices, or materials used for consuming or preparing dangerous drugs (e.g., improvised tooters, aluminum foil, lighters, sachet heat-sealers, glass pipes).

Penalties (high-level)

For maintainers: life imprisonment (death penalty abolished by R.A. 9346) and a substantial fine (the statute fixes a high fine range).
Employees or visitors are addressed in Section 7 (employees/visitors of a den, dive, or resort) and, where use is established, Section 15 (use of dangerous drugs) may apply.
Qualifying/aggravating factors under other provisions (e.g., involvement of minors, public office abuse, or proximity to schools for sale-type offenses) can affect penalty treatment in companion charges.

Elements the Prosecution Must Prove

To convict under Section 6, the prosecution generally proves:

Existence of a place (house, room, bar, lodging, shanty, “session room,” resort, etc.).
Control or management by the accused (ownership, leasehold, de facto control, gatekeeping rules, collection of “session” fees).
Prohibited drug activity on the premises (use, sale, administration, delivery, storage), often shown by actual drug sessions or overt acts tied to drug use/transactions.
Knowledge and intent that the place is used for such drug activity (may be inferred from circumstances—habituality, paraphernalia in open view, repeat users frequenting the site, accused’s directives, or admissions).

Core theory: It is not necessary to prove a consummated sale by the accused; what matters is knowingly allowing/maintaining the premises for drug activity.

Evidence That Typically Makes or Breaks a Section 6 Case

1) Control/maintenance of the premises

Documentary: land title, lease contract, utility bills, IDs listing the address, business permits, barangay residence certificates, tenancy papers.
Testimonial: neighbors, informants, co-occupants, building caretakers, barangay officials, or poseur-buyers/undercover agents attesting to the accused’s rules, gatekeeping, fee collection, or permission patterns.
Physical set-up: signage, locked “session rooms,” queuing system, entry logs, timers, CCTV control, receipts for “rent-a-use” arrangements.

2) Drug activity inside

Seizure of drugs and paraphernalia during buy-busts, searches, or rescue/raid operations.
Observation of actual drug use (smoking, sniffing, heating), presence of freshly used paraphernalia (burnt foil, warm glass pipes), sachets, lighters, and residues.
Forensics: laboratory chemistry reports confirming seized substances as dangerous drugs; qualitative tests on residues/paraphernalia (where applicable).

3) Knowledge/intent

Pattern evidence: repeated visits by known users, prior complaints, surveillance logs showing routine drug sessions.
Statements/acts: accused issuing instructions (“dito lang sa loob,” “bayad muna”), keeping paraphernalia accessible, collecting “room/session” fees, or setting rules for drug use.
Constructive knowledge: drugs and paraphernalia in plain view in areas under the accused’s exclusive control.

4) Chain of custody (Section 21) when drugs are seized

Immediate marking at the place of seizure, inventory and photography, and the presence of required witnesses (as amended by R.A. 10640) with justified exceptions where strict compliance is not feasible.
Documented transfer from seizure → inventory → storage → lab examination → court presentation.
People v. Lim/Sipin line of cases emphasizes that any deviation must be explained and credibly justified, otherwise the integrity and evidentiary value of the seized drugs can be compromised—often fatal to the case.

Practice note: Even though the corpus delicti of a Sec. 6 offense is the maintenance of a place for drug activity, prosecutions usually hinge on seized drug evidence. Poor Section 21 compliance can undermine the entire narrative of a “drug den.”

Typical Law-Enforcement Scenarios and Evidence Maps

Buy-bust inside a suspected den
- Proof package: poseur-buyer testimony + pre-operation report + coordination with PDEA + marked money + seized sachets/paraphernalia + Sec. 21 documents + chemistry report + neighbor/barangay corroboration (habituality).
- Add-ons: If the accused controlled rooms, collected “session fees,” or gated entry, those facts go to maintenance.
Search-warrant raid (Rule 126)
- Proof package: valid SW issuance (probable cause, particularity, sworn statements), proper service, inventory and photography, chemistry report, occupancy/control papers, witness statements showing use or storage for drug activity.
Warrantless in flagrante arrest
- Proof package: overt acts witnessed (actual use/sale), exigency for warrantless entry (e.g., hot pursuit/in flagrante), Sec. 21 compliance, and reliable proof of control by the accused.

How Cases Are Filed: End-to-End Workflow

Initial intel & surveillance
- Community complaints, informant tips, controlled buys, or prior arrests pointing to a “session house.”
- PDEA or local anti-drug units prepare pre-operation reports and coordination entries.
Operation
- Buy-bust or search-warrant execution (or in-flagrante intervention).
- Seizure & documentation: marking, inventory, and photographing of drugs/paraphernalia per Sec. 21, with the presence of required witnesses as amended.
- Chemistry examination: submission of seized items to the forensic lab; receipt of lab report.
Inquest / Prosecutor review (if warrantless arrest)
- Complaint-Affidavits from arresting officers and poseur-buyer; annexes: pre-op and post-op reports, inventory, photographs, witness certifications, lab reports, property documents proving control, and sworn statements of neighbors/visitors.
- Inquest resolution: Prosecutor determines probable cause for Sec. 6 (and any companion charges under Secs. 5, 7, 11, 12, 15). If arrest was with warrant, a regular preliminary investigation is conducted unless waived.
Filing of Information
- Information is filed with the Regional Trial Court—Special Drugs Court, alleging the acts constituting maintenance, the place, and the drug activity involved.
- Non-bailable offense when the penalty is life imprisonment and evidence of guilt is strong (bail hearings focus on strength of the prosecution’s case).
Arraignment & Pre-trial
- Marking of exhibits, stipulations (e.g., identity of chemist), and narrowing of issues (often: control/maintenance, knowledge, Sec. 21 compliance, legality of arrest/search).
Trial
- Prosecution evidence: arresting officers, poseur-buyer/undercover, inventory witnesses, chemist, barangay/media/DOJ witnesses, neighbors, documentary trail (leases, utilities), photos, seized items.
- Defense evidence: denial, alibi, lack of control (e.g., landlord not in possession, sublease), lack of knowledge/consent, illegal search, breaks in chain of custody, frame-up.
Judgment
- Courts assess: (a) credible proof of control; (b) credible proof of drug activity in the premises; (c) knowledge; and (d) integrity of seized evidence.
- Acquittals commonly arise from: fatal Sec. 21 lapses, invalid searches, or failure to establish control/knowledge.
Post-conviction issues
- Forfeiture of instruments/proceeds (e.g., paraphernalia, vehicles) is typical; forfeiture of real property hinges on ownership by the convicted party and lack of innocent owner defenses.
- Civil/administrative spillovers: closure/padlocking under local ordinances, business permit cancellations, nuisance abatement.

Charging Strategy and Companion Offenses

Section 6 (maintenance) is often filed together with:
- Section 5 (sale/delivery) if a transaction occurred.
- Section 7 (employees/visitors of a den).
- Section 11 (possession of dangerous drugs) and Section 12 (possession of paraphernalia).
- Section 15 (use) for visitors/users who test positive.
Multiplicity vs. duplicity: Each distinct statutory violation can be separately charged if supported by discrete acts/elements; prosecutors typically avoid duplicitous allegations in one Information.

Evidence Checklists (for Practitioners)

Prosecution

Proof the premises exist and are the locus of drug activity (photos, sketch, inventory location tags).
Control by the accused (ownership/lease, keys, rules, receipt of “session” fees, witness accounts).
Drug activity: actual use/transactions observed; seized drugs/paraphernalia tied to the place.
Sec. 21 end-to-end chain: marking, inventory, photos, required witnesses, justified deviations, chemistry report, custody logs.
Surveillance and pre-op documentation; coordination records.
Community corroboration: neighbors/barangay accounts showing habituality.

Defense

No control: the accused is a mere visitor, or a landlord without possession; third-party tenant truly operates the site.
No knowledge/consent: lack of awareness that the premises were used for drugs (especially for absentee owners).
Illegal search/arrest: challenge warrant sufficiency, entry, or exceptions to warrant requirement.
Sec. 21 gaps: missing markings, absent witnesses, unjustified deviations, broken custody links.
Implausible police narrative: inconsistencies, absence of marked money/receipts, lack of habituality proof.
Forfeiture defenses for innocent owners.

Practical Notes on Proof

Habituality vs. single incident: While one proved incident of actual drug use/sale inside can suffice, patterns (multiple sessions, many users, “fee schedule,” reused paraphernalia) strengthen the inference of maintenance.
Paraphernalia matters: Even when drugs are in residue amounts, paraphernalia + credible testimony can substantiate that the place is purposed for drug use; still, poor Section 21 handling of seized items can be fatal.
Paper trail of control often decides the case: who pays the rent and utilities, who keeps the keys, who sets house rules.
Minors/users inside invite companion charges and may influence sentencing within statutory bounds.

Courtroom Themes That Often Decide Section 6 Cases

Control/maintenance proved by conduct (fee collection, access control, warnings to outsiders) even without paper title.
Section 21 compliance (or credible explanation for deviations) as the pivot for evidentiary integrity.
Consistency of police accounts with operation documents (pre-op/post-op reports), inventory, and chemistry.
Defense narratives that credibly separate the accused from control and knowledge, or that expose illegal search and custody breaks.

Frequently Asked Questions

Is the actual sale required? No. Maintenance of a place used for drug activity is itself punishable, even absent a consummated sale.

Can a landlord be liable? Yes, if the landlord knowingly allows the premises to be used as a drug den. Lack of knowledge/consent is a recognized defense; due diligence (inspections, complaints acted upon) helps.

Is bail available? Because the penalty is life imprisonment, bail may be denied if the prosecution shows that the evidence of guilt is strong. Courts often hold a bail hearing to test that.

What if the drugs weren’t presented in court? When the case narrative relies on a seizure, non-presentation or a tainted chain of custody can be fatal. If the prosecution’s theory does not hinge on a specific seizure (rare in practice), robust testimonial and circumstantial proof still must establish every element.

Takeaways

Section 6 targets maintainers of places for drug activity, making control and knowledge the decisive issues.
Section 21 chain-of-custody rigor remains mission-critical whenever drugs/paraphernalia are seized.
The strongest cases layer surveillance, credible eyewitness accounts, properly handled physical evidence, and a paper trail of control—while anticipating defenses on knowledge, illegality of the search, and custody breaks.

This overview is for informational purposes and does not constitute legal advice. For specific cases, consult counsel and the latest jurisprudence and circulars applicable to your jurisdiction.