PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE, VS. FREDDIE PADAYAO, ACCUSED-APPELLANT.
QUIJANO-PADILLA, J.:
The Antecedents
Accused-appellant Freddie Padayao (appellant) was indicted in Criminal Case No. CBU- 92702 for violating Section 11, Article II of Republic Act 9165 under the following Information, viz.:
That on or about the 5th DAY of JUNE 2011 at about 6:00 o’clock in the evening, in the City of Cebu, Philippines and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the said accused, with deliberate intent and without being authorized by law, did then and there have in his possession and under his control one (1) stick of half-consumed hand-rolled white paper containing 0.04 gram of dried crushed marijuana leaves, a dangerous drug.
CONTRARY TO LAW.[3]
When arraigned, appellant pleaded not guilty to the offense charged.[4] During the trial, the prosecution’s account was testified to by barangay tanods Zandro Garcia (Garcia) and Alvin Mahilum (Mahilum). The OSG summarized[5] their testimonies as follows:
xxx on the date and time in question, barangay tanods (BT) Zandro Garcia and Alvin Mahilum were on roving patrol at Unit 3, Carbon Public Market, Cebu City. They were informed by somebody regarding the presence of persons smoking marijuana. The tanods went up to the second floor of Unit 3. BT Garcia tried to locate the specific place where the smell or odor of marijuana was coming from. Finally, they saw the accused smoking a marijuana cigarette. After introducing himself as a barangay tanod, BT Garcia confiscated the marijuana stick from the accused, who was there and then arrested. At the crime scene, said tanod placed the markings “FP-06-05-11” on the half consumed marijuana stick which he brought to the police station. An inventory[6] of the seized marijuana stick was witnessed by barangay official Domingo Ando, Jr. and photographs[7] thereof were taken. The witnesses also signed the inventory. At the police station, the arrest and the seized illegal drug were reflected in the police blotter.[8]
After an examination of the seized contraband by P/Supt. Mutchit Salinas, the laboratory chemist to whom the confiscated marijuana was forwarded for chemical testing, she found the specimen to be marijuana, a dangerous drug, per Chemistry Report No. D-650-2011.[9]
On the other hand, appellant, for his defense, testified that he was a laborer in Carbon market. On the date of the incident, at about 7:00 o’clock in the morning, he was sitting on his cart waiting for someone to hire his services. While doing so, he was approached by the barangay tanods and told that somebody complained that her necklace was stolen and that appellant fitted the description of the snatcher. The woman victim then identified appellant as the snatcher. Appellant told the woman that he was only a laborer but the barangay tanods brought him to the barangay hall.Appellant thought that he would be charged for snatching. However, when he was brought to the police precinct, he was indicted for illegal possession of half-consumed marijuana stick .
After the parties presented their respective evidence, the trial court convicted appellant of the charge against him. The dispositive portion of its Decision reads, viz.:
WHEREFORE, premises considered, the Court finds Freddie Padayao guilty beyond reasonable doubt for Violation of Section 11, Article II of RA 9165 and is sentenced to suffer the penalty of imprisonment ranging from twelve (12) years and one (1) day to fifteen (15) years and a fine of P300,000.00.
The half consumed marijuana stick is forfeited in favor of the government.
Accused is entitled to a credit for the period during his preventive imprisonment.
SO ORDERED.[10]
Aggrieved, appellant elevated the matter to Us citing the lone error that:
THE TRIAL COURT ERRED IN CONVICTING THE ACCUSED-APPELLANT OF THE CRIME CHARGED DESPITE THE FAILURE OF THE PROSECUTION TO PROVE HIS GUILT BEYOND REASONABLE DOUBT.[11]
This Court’s Ruling
The appeal is meritorious.
We begin with the basic mandate by no less than Our Constitution that an accused shall be presumed innocent until the contrary is proved. In criminal cases, the quantum of evidence required to overturn this presumption is proof beyond reasonable doubt, or that proof which produces moral certainty in an unprejudiced mind.[12] The burden of proving that an accused is guilty of the offense charged lies upon the prosecution[13] who must rely on its own evidence in discharging that burden.
In this case, the prosecution’s case for possession against appellant rested on the alleged incident during which appellant was caught in possession of a half-consumed stick containing 0.04 gram of marijuana. The circumstances of the supposed incident were testified to by barangay tanods Garcia and Mahilum who were the ones who apprehended the accused. Their accounts formed part of the prosecution’s evidence that appellant’s alleged possession of the illegal drug took place.
Unfortunately, however, after evaluating the prosecution witnesses’ testimonial evidence on record, this Court cannot help but harbor lingering qualms regarding the truth of the supposed occurrence.
In the Joint Affidavit[14] which was used in filing the Information, both barangay tanods Garcia and Mahilum attested on the following facts, thus:
1. On June 5, 2011 at around 6:00 o’clock in the evening we were on duty and while conducting a preventive foot patrol within our area of jurisdiction, passing by the interior portion of Unit 3, Carbon Public Market xxx we were disturbed by a pungent odor, as we smelled to be a smoke from Marijuana leaves; [Emphasis and underscoring supplied.]
During his testimony, barangay tanod Garcia affirmed that they were on roving patrol when both he and barangay tanod Mahilum smelled the odor of marijuana.[15] However, when it was barangay tanod Mahilum’s turn to recount the incident, he gave a testimony laden with confusing details that no longer harmonized with the Joint Affidavit and barangay tanod Garcia’s account. At some point, barangay tanod Mahilum even contradicted himself as shown by the following transcript of stenographic notes during his testimony.
TESTIMONY OF ALVIN MAHILUM ON QUESTIONS ASKED BY BY PROSECUTOR SIMACO LABATA DURING DIRECT EXAMINATION:[16] Q: How about you, did you happen to notice or smell the odor? A: No, because I was at a distance from Zandro, sir. TESTIMONY OF ALVIN MAHILUM ON QUESTIONS PROPOUNDED BY ATTY. PRESCILLA SALVACION:[17] Q: You and Zandro Garcia started foot patrol at the ground floor? A: At the second floor maam, in reaching the second floor there is a staircase. xxx xxx xxx Q: From where did you come from before you proceeded to the second floor of the Carbon market? A: From our outpost, maam. Q: So, from the outpost, you immediately climbed the stairs and proceeded to the second floor, is that what you are trying to impress this Honorable Court? A: Because somebody informed us that there is a person smoking marijuana ma’am. Q: And where were you when you were informed that a person or somebody was smoking marijuana at the Carbon market? A: In our outpost, ma’am, since our outpost is just near that third unit. xxx xxx xxx Q: According to you because you were two (2) armslength away from him, you did not smell that marijuana cigarette? A: Yes, ma’am. Q: In fact, when you approached Garcia, he already had in his possession the marijuana cigarette taken from the accused? A: Yes, ma’am. Q: So, never did you smell the marijuana cigarette while you were approaching the accused and at the time of apprehension of accused by Garcia? A: No, ma’am. Q: And you came to know that it was marijuana cigarette when you saw it in possession of Garcia ? A: Yes, ma’am. xxx xxx xxx Q: On the first paragraph of the allegation of this affidavit, it says here that while you were passing at the interior portion of Unit 3, Carbon Public Market, we were disturbed by a pungent ordor, as we smelled to be a smoke from marijuana, the we here, I understand refers to you and Garcia, is that correct? A: Yes, ma’am, but the truth was that I was at a distance from Zandro Garcia during that time. Q: And at the second paragraph of your allegations here, it says that this prompted us to locate the source of the odor and when we were at the second floor of said building, we saw a male person now identified as Freddie Padayao, actually smoking a cigarette believed to contain a marijuana leaves. If I am correct in my understanding, in the first paragraph, your allegation refers to the interior portion of Unit 3 which is still the ground floor and it was [the smell of] the pungent odor that prompted you to locate the source of the odor? A: We were at our outpost when we smelled the odor coming from the marijuana, ma’am, since our outpost is located at third unit of Carbon market just beside a staircase going to the second floor. Q: So, you are saying that even at the outpost, the pungent odor could already be smelled as alleged here in the affidavit? A: Not yet, ma’am. Q: Yes, it was not smelled because in your allegation, you even said a while ago in your direct testimony, xxx that you were not able to smell the marijuana cigarette? A: Yes, ma’am.
The flip-flopping testimony of one of the prosecution’s witness restrains Us from affirming appellant’s conviction. Although declarations of law enforcers are accorded weight, their testimonies, to be worthy as evidence, must themselves be credible and not suspect.[18] Our observations that barangay tanod Mahilum’s account was marred by notable vacillations preclude Us from according full faith and credit to his testimony. The variance between his story and that of barangay tanod Garcia makes Us doubt also the latter’s testimony. We cannot just casually dismiss and consider as trivial the discrepancies in their testimonies considering that the matter involves the very query of whether or not the incident of possession of illegal drug really happened. The discrepancies make it difficult for the Court to determine what exactly are the facts as there is no way to determine who is telling the truth and who is not.[19] Our minds cannot, therefore, rest easy and there persists a nagging uncertainty on whether or not appellant indeed possessed the illegal drug alleged. Considering this reasonable doubt on the occurrence of the incident itself, the rest of the documentary evidence becomes too tenuous to justify appellant’s conviction.
In a long line of cases, it has been consistently held that when the inculpatory facts and circumstances are capable of two or more interpretations, one of which is consistent with the innocence of the accused and the other or others consistent with his guilt, then the evidence has not fulfilled the test of moral certainty and is thus insufficient to support a conviction.[20] Since appellant’s guilt had not been proven with moral certainty, the presumption of his innocence must be upheld and his exoneration be granted as a matter of right.
Notwithstanding appellant’s acquittal, the stick containing marijuana that was presented in court, being a contraband, must be disposed of in accordance with law.
WHEREFORE, the appeal is GRANTED. Judgment of the Regional Trial Court, Branch 57, Cebu City dated December 21, 2012 in Criminal Case No. CBU-92702 is hereby REVERSED AND SET ASIDE.
Accused-appellant FREDDIE PADAYAO is ACQUITTED on reasonable doubt and ORDERED IMMEDIATELY RELEASED from custody, unless he is being held for some other lawful cause. The responsible officer is ORDERED to implement this Decision and to report to this Court the action taken hereon within five (5) days from receipt.
The marijuana subject of this case is confiscated and forfeited in favor of the government to be dealt with in accordance with law.
SO ORDERED.
Delos Santos, Chairperson and Azcarraga-Jacob, JJ., concur.
[1] Rollo, pp. 20-23.
[2] Otherwise known as An Act Instituting The Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002, Repealing Republic Act NO. 6425, Otherwise Known As The Dangerous Drugs Act Of 1972, As Amended, Providing Funds Therefor, And For Other Purposes.
[3] Record, pp. 1-2.
[4] See Certificate of Arraignment, records p. 17.
[5] See summary in Appellee’s Brief, rollo, p. 34, footnotes omitted, new footnotes according to documentary evidence on record are provided.
[6] Record, p. 5.
[7] Rollo, p. 8.
[8] Record, p. 10.
[9] Record, p. 30.
[10] Rollo, p. 23.
[11] Rollo, p.11
[12] See People of the Philippines v. Mariano, G.R. No. 133990. June 26, 2001.
[13] See People of the Philippines v. Manliclic, G.R. No. 138501. July 20, 2001.
[14] Record, p. 4.
[15] See TSN dated September 28, 2011, p. 4.
[16] See TSN dated January 11, 2012, p. 6.
[17] See TSN dated January 11, 2012, pp. 16-21.
[18] People of the Philippines v. Pagaura, G.R. No. 95352. January 28, 1997.
[19] See People v. Marcos, G.R. No. 115006. March 18, 1999.
[20] See People of the Philippines v. Binamira, G.R. No. 110397. August 14, 1997; People of the Philippines v. Sayana, G.R. Nos. 142553-54. July 1, 2003.