PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, PLAINTIFF, VS. ERIC F. TIMTIMAN, ACCUSED.

This is an appeal from
the decision of the Regional Trial Court of Morong, Rizal, Branch 79, the dispositive
portion of which reads:

“WHEREFORE, this court finds the accused Eric Timtiman y
Fulgado guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of Violation of Section 4,
Article II, Republic Act 6425, as amended, and hereby sentences him to life imprisonment, and to pay
a fine of P20,000.00, plus costs.” (Decision, p. 7; Rollo, p. 17)

The information filed
against the accused alleges:

“That on or about the 5th day of September 1990, in the
Municipality of Tanay, Province of Rizal, Philippines, and within the
jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the above-named accused, without having
been authorized by law, did then and there willfully, unlawfully and feloniously sell, deliver and give away
to another two (2) tea bags of dried marijuana leaves with a total weight of
2.53 grams and three (3) sticks of marijuana cigarette, which are prohibited
drugs, in violation of the above?cited law.” (Records, p. 1)

The prosecution evidence
upon which the trial court based its finding of guilt beyond reasonable doubt
is as follows:

“P/LT. JULITA T. DE VILLA, Forensic Chemist, PNP, Crime
Laboratory Service, Camp Crame, Quezon City, in brief testified as
follows: That per request for
qualitative examination by Major Edgardo G. Manuel, PC, Commanding Officer of
the 222nd Philippine Constabulary Baras, Rizal, she performed the microscopic,
chemical and thin layer comatography of the two (2) tea bags and three (3)
sticks of marijuana cigarettes, submitted to their office, (Exhibit
“A”). That as a result of the
examination, she issued Certificate of Laboratory Result, Exhibit “B”
showing to wit:

‘Exhibit “A” – two (2) small transparent plastic bags each containing dried
suspected marijuana leaves having a
total weight of 2. 53 grams;

Exhibit “B” – three (3) sticks of suspected Marijuana
cigarettes.

This is to certify further that the laboratory examination of
the above-mentioned specimens gave the following results;

Exhibit “A” and “B” – Positive to the test
for marijuana, a prohibited drug. (Exhibit “B-2”)

Further she issued Chemistry Report No. D-972-90, Exhibit
“C”, wherein it appears that the specimens submitted were:

Exhibit “A” – two (2) small transparent plastic bags each containing dried
suspected marijuana leaves having a total weight of 2.53 grams;

Exhibit “B” – Three (3) sticks of suspected marijuana
cigarettes. (Exhibit “C”)

Findings were:

‘Qualitative examination conducted on the above?mentioned
specimen gave positive result to the test for marijuana, a prohibited drug.’

SGT. NORBERTO MACARAEG of the PNP Station Baras, Rizal, in brief testified as follows: That on September 5, 1990 he was assigned
with the 222nd PC Co. situated at Manila East Road, Baras, Rizal. That on said date their office received
information that somebody, one Eric was selling marijuana in Tanay, Rizal. That their office was also furnished description of said Eric as
one who is tall, muscular and with well built body. That at about 12:30 in the afternoon together with CIC Nonato
Esquilon (should be Esquillon) on said date, they conducted a surveillance at
Midway Restaurant situated at Sitio Burol, Barangay Tandang Kutyo, Tanay,
Rizal. That acting as poseur-buyer and
with the furnished description, he approached the accused Eric Timtiman and convinced
him to sell marijuana to him. That the
accused Eric Timtiman gave
him the two plastic
cellophane containing marijuana leaves and three (3) sticks of marijuana
cigarettes and he in turn paid him the amount of three P10.00 peso bills. That upon receiving the aforesaid two (2)
plastic bags of marijuana leaves and three (3) sticks of marijuana cigarettes,
(Exhibit “E”, “E-I” and “E-2”), he announced the
arrest and his companion CIC Nonato Esquilon who was about 5 meters away as
back up, handcuffed Eric Timtiman, and they brought him to the Headquarter together with the two (2)
cellophane of marijuana and three (3) sticks of marijuana cigarettes, (Exhibit
“E”, “E-1”, and “E-2”). That they turned over the accused to investigator Sgt. Arisgado.

“CIC NONATO ESQUILON of the 222nd PC Co. Baras, Rizal, in brief
testified as follows: That on September
5, 1990 at about 1:00 o’clock in the afternoon together with Sgt. Norberto
Macaraeg, they were in the Midway Restaurant at Tanay, Rizal. That per information of Sgt. Quintin
Arisgado, Chief of Interrogation and Investigation Division of the 222nd PC
Co., they stayed at the
Midway Restaurant for transaction or sale of dried marijuana. That they started the buy-bust operation
wherein Sgt. Norberto Macaraeg
acted as poseur buyer, and him as back up. That he was about 10 meters away from Sgt. Macaraeg outside the
restaurant observing what will happen, and if anything happened, that is the
time he will enter the restaurant. That
there was a commotion, so he entered the restaurant and he saw Norberto
Macaraeg coming out from the comfort room and told him, ‘baka iyon, kasama
iyon’. That he apprehended the person
pointed to by Sgt. Macaraeg, and who turned out to be the accused Eric
Timtiman. That he and Sgt. Macaraeg
brought the accused to the 222nd PC Co, Baras, Rizal. That during the buy-bust operation, he did not see the accused
holding marijuana tea bags, and that except for instructions of Sgt. Macaraeg
to apprehend the accused, they brought the accused to 222nd PC Co., Baras,
Rizal in order to determine whether he is really involved in that drug
trafficking.” (Decision, pp. 2-3; Rollo, pp. 12-13)

On the other hand, the version of the defense is summarized by
the trial court as follows:

“ERIC TIMTIMAN Y
FULGADO in brief testified as follows: That he is a student of Tanay National High School in Tanay, Rizal, free
from tuition fees. That on September 5,
1990 at about 1:00 o’clock in the afternoon, he was in the Midway Restaurant,
Sitio Burol, Barangay Tandang Kutyo, Tanay, Rizal. That he was in the restaurant to request for the advice of his
uncle of his plan to elope with one Angelita San Juan. That he arrived at the Midway Restaurant
together with his uncle Renato Concepcion, Angelita San Juan was already there waiting for
them. That when they arrived at the restaurant at about 11:30 in the morning
Angelita San Juan was sitting facing the door at a table near the window, which
was about 2 arms length away. That
there were about four tables inside the Midway Restaurant, and two of the
tables were occupied. That they sat at
the table and talked with Angelita San Juan. That at about 1:00 o’clock of the same day two persons made a mistake
about (pinagkamalan po ako) him and thought that he was with the two persons
which they were apprehending. That at
that time, the two other tables inside the restaurant were occupied, each by 3
and two persons who were drinking soft drinks and beers, respectively. That with the two persons who made a mistake
about him, one came from the outside of the restaurant while the other at a
table near the door. That one of the
said persons held his hand and arrested him, but did not
say anything. That after his
apprehension, he was loaded by the two in a tricycle and brought him to the
222nd PC INP Co., Baras, Rizal. That
prior to this date, he has never been charged of any crime as attested to in
his Barangay clearance, both dated April 1, 1990. That he came to know later that the two persons who apprehended
him were Norberto Macaraeg and Nonato Esquilon.

“RENATO CONCEPCION in brief testified as follows: That on September 5, 1990 between the hours
of 11:00 and 1:00 o’clock in the afternoon he was with his nephew Eric Timtiman
in the Midway Beer House and Restaurant in Tanay, Rizal. That he was with Eric Timtiman at the Restaurant because the latter told him that he
will elope with the girl. That his
purpose in going to the restaurant was to help the accused talk to the girl so
that the two could elope. That upon
arriving at the restaurant while waiting for the food to be served, he talked
with the girl and asked her if she was really decided to elope with his nephew,
and she answered yes. That at the time
they were seated on the table, Eric Timtiman was seated on his left, and the
woman, Angelita San Juan on his right and at the time he was facing the
window. That their table is about three
(3) arms length away from the door of the restaurant. That upon arriving at the restaurant, two of the tables were
occupied, one by two (2) persons drinking beers and the other by three (3)
persons drinking soft drinks. That at
the other table occupied by two persons who were drinking beers, he noticed a
small clutch bag on the table. That at
about 1:00 o’clock in the afternoon of the same day while
the three of them were talking, he noticed the movement of two persons, then
suddenly one of the two men entered the comfort room, and thereafter, he heard
a commotion inside the same room. That
he was surprised and looked toward the direction of the comfort room,
then the other person, and companion, suddenly went out of the restaurant. At that juncture, another man entered the
restaurant coming from the highway and said, ‘Hayun, baka iyon, hulihin mo,’
pointing to Eric Timtiman. That this
order was directed to the person who has just entered the restaurant, and the
order came from the person who just came out of the comfort room when he did
not find anyone at the table vacated by the two persons drinking beer. That he was taken aback when the person got
inside and ran directly to Eric and held his hands. That when he complained regarding the arrest of Eric, he was told
to follow them to the 222nd PC Co., Baras, Rizal. That he was angry
because his nephew was arrested without a warrant of arrest and he was not
aware of any wrong doing committed by his nephew. That he went to the mother of the accused and together they went
to the 222nd PC Co., Baras, Rizal.

“ANGELITA SAN JUAN in brief testified as follows: That she is a Cabaret dancer of the Honey
Bees in Tanay, Rizal. She came to know
the accused Eric Timtiman. That the
accused first courted her and later they became sweethearts. That Eric Timtiman brought her from the
Honey Bees to the Midway Restaurant and thereafter, left to fetch his
uncle. That there were other tables occupied when
they arrived, one of the tables was located near the door and the other
inside. That the table occupied by her
was three arms length from the door of the restaurant. Of the two other tables, one was occupied by three persons, and the other by two
persons. That at about 12:00 noon, Eric
Timtiman returned to the restaurant with his uncle Renato Concepcion. That while they were eating their lunch, they were discussing the plan of
elopement. That at about 1:00 o’clock
in the afternoon of that same day, a man entered the restaurant and approached
the two men at one of the tables and they talked. That the man who approached the two seated at the table pulled
out something from his pocket, but she did not see what was it. One of the men left and went to the comfort
room, and the other man left at the table got impatient and followed the
former inside the comfort room. That
another man arrived and the man left at the table went out of the
restaurant. That one of the persons inside
the comfort room went out and talked to the newly arrived man and there was a commotion and that the man shouted, ‘Hayun,
baka iyon, hulihin mo.’ That the statement was said by the one who came from
the comfort room and directed to the newly arrived man. That the two persons approached them and
handcuffed Eric, and the latter’s uncle asked what wrong has his nephew
done. The two persons said that they
will talk about the incident at their camp in Baras. That she was left behind at the restaurant crying, and later on
she rode in a tricycle and went to the mother of the accused to inform her of
what happened.” (Decision, pp. 3-5; Rollo, pp. 13-15)

The appellant raises the following assignment of errors, to wit:

I

THE LOWER COURT GRAVELY ERRED IN CONVICTING THE ACCUSED ON THE BASIS
MERELY OF THE COURT’S ASSUMPTION THAT THE LATTER WAS THE ONLY PERSON PRESENT AT
THE RESTAURANT FITTING THE DESCRIPTION ‘TALL, MUSCULAR AND WITH WELL-BUILT
PHYSIQUE.

II

THE LOWER COURT GRAVELY ERRED IN CONVICTING THE ACCUSED DESPITE
THE CLEAR UNCERTAINTY AND VAGUENESS OF THE TESTIMONIES OF THE PROSECUTION
WITNESSES AND THE TOTAL LACK OF
PROOF BEYOND REASONABLE DOUBT.

III

THE LOWER COURT GRAVELY ERRED IN CONVICTING THE ACCUSED DESPITE
THE ILLEGALITY OF HIS ARREST.

IV

THE LOWER COURT GRAVELY ERRED IN CONVICTING THE HEREIN ACCUSED
DESPITE THE GRAVE OPENLY ADMITTED DOUBTS SURROUNDING HIS ARREST.

V

THE LOWER COURT GRAVELY ERRED IN CONVICTING THE ACCUSED DESPITE
THE FAILURE OF THE PROSECUTION TO PRESENT ANY CORROBORATING EVIDENCE IN THE
CASE. (Appellant’s Brief, pp. 8-9)

From a careful reading of the records, we find that the
prosecution evidence failed to prove the guilt of the appellant beyond
reasonable doubt. The evidence
presented was insufficient to overcome the presumption of innocence in favor of
the accused. The appellant should,
therefore, be acquitted.

This Court is well aware of the established rule that findings of
fact of the trial court are given great weight and a high degree of respect by
the appellate court considering that the former is in a better position to pass
upon the matter of credibility of witnesses (See People v. Naguita, G.R. No.
76002, April 22, 1992; People v. Castillo, G.R. No. 93408, April 10,
1992). However, we will not hesitate to
take exception to this rule in order to keep faith with the immutable principle
that every criminal conviction must be supported by proof beyond reasonable
doubt. (People v. Viray, 202 SCRA 320,
327 [1991]) Among the exceptions to the rule are: (a) the conclusion is a finding grounded entirely on
speculations, surmises and conjectures; (b) the inference made is manifestly
mistaken, absurd or impossible; (c) there is grave abuse of discretion; (d) the
judgment is based on misapprehension of facts; and (e) the court in making its
findings, went beyond the issues of the case and the same are contrary to the
admissions of both the appellant and appellee (People v. Giron, 192 SCRA 141,
148-149 [1990]) citing People v. Ale, 145 SCRA 58 [1986]). Another exception is where the lower court
overlooked certain facts of substance and value that if considered would affect
the result of the case. (People v.
Nuñez, G.R. No. 79316, April 10, 1992; People v. Salcedo, 195 SCRA 345, 348-349
[1991]) This case falls under the exception.

It is not disputed that there was indeed, a violation of Section
4, Article II of Republic Act No. 6425 (Dangerous Drugs Act, as amended) but
can we state beyond reasonable doubt that it was the appellant who committed
such violation?

The requirement of proof beyond reasonable doubt requires moral
certainty of guilt, “a certainty that convinces and satisfies the reason
and conscience of those who are to act upon it.” (People v. Viray, supra,
p. 332) This requirement was not met in the instant case.

To support the judgment
of conviction, the trial court mainly relied upon the testimony of the
poseur-buyer, Sgt. Norberto Macaraeg. The testimony of Sgt. Macaraeg, standing alone, would have been
sufficient to convict the appellant. Taken by itself, it would have been believable as there were no
inconsistencies in his testimony. Reasonable doubt, however, was introduced as Sgt. Macaraeg’s testimony
had to be taken together with the testimony of his companion during the
buy-bust operation, the other prosecution witness, CIC Nonato Esquillon.

The testimonies of the
two policemen, both prosecution witnesses are not in accord with each
other. There is a variance as to what
happened upon the arrest of Macaraeg.

According to Macaraeg,
upon receiving the marijuana, he announced the arrest of the appellant (TSN,
April 23, 1991, p. 8). On the
other hand, Esquillon testified that upon his entrance in the restaurant, he
saw Macaraeg coming out from the comfort room telling him “baka iyon,
kasama iyon” pointing to the appellant. (TSN, May 15, 1991, p. 4) If Macaraeg’s testimony is indeed true, then
how is it that Esquillon saw him come out of the comfort room pointing to the
appellant when he said that he was at the appellant’s table announcing his
arrest. (TSN, April 23, 1991, pp. 6-8)

The testimony of
Esquillon is in fact more in consonance with the testimonies of the defense witnesses. Renato Concepcion, one of the defense witnesses, testified that a
person who had just gotten out from the comfort room told another person who had
just entered the restaurant “Hayun, baka iyon, hulihin mo” pointing
to the appellant. (TSN, May 21, 1991,
p. 5) Angelita San Juan testified to the same circumstances. (TSN, May 21, 1991, pp. 11-13)]

As gathered from a
reading of the transcript of stenographic notes, Macaraeg’s version is as
follows: that he entered the restaurant
and approached the appellant asking if he could buy marijuana from him. That the appellant acceded to his request
and upon the exchange of the marijuana and money, he announced the arrest of
the appellant. That his companion,
Esquillon, then approached the appellant and handcuffed him. Conversely, the version of the defense is as
follows: That a person entered the
restaurant and approached two men who were seated at another table. That one of the men stood up and went inside
the comfort room. That the person who
entered the restaurant got impatient and followed the man inside the comfort
room. That the other man left at the
table went out of the restaurant. That
afterwards, the man who followed to the comfort room went out and told a person
who just entered the restaurant “Hayan, baka iyon, hulihin mo.” That
the man who just entered the restaurant arrested the appellant. It can be inferred from the testimony of
Esquillon taken in conjunction with the version of the defense that the person
who came out of the comfort room was Macaraeg and the person directed to arrest
the appellant was Esquillon.

Two versions are
presented before us. The version of
Macaraeg which was the basis of the judgment of conviction of the lower court
and the version of the defense which is even supported by the testimony of one
of the prosecution witnesses, one of the policemen involved in the buy-bust
operation. It has been held in People
v. Remorosa, 200 SCRA 350, 360
[1991] that:

x x x  x x x  x x x

“If the inculpatory facts and circumstances are capable of
two or more explanations, one of which is consistent with the innocence of the
accused and the other consistent with his guilt, then the evidence does not
fulfill the test of moral certainty and is not sufficient to support a
conviction.” (Cited in People v. Ale, No. 70998, October 14, 1988, 145
SCRA 64)

x x x  x x x  x x x

Aside from the
abovementioned, the absence of the three (3) ten peso bills handed over by
Macaraeg to the appellant as a material item of evidence must be construed in
favor of the appellant. There was a
categorical declaration of the transfer of the three (3) ten peso bills (TSN,
April 23, 1991, p. 3 and 5) that were supposedly used to buy the marijuana from
the appellant. The money therefore is a
material item of evidence to prove, not that a sale or delivery had taken
place, but that there was indeed a “transactional relationship”
between Macaraeg and the appellant who was immediately apprehended after the
“transaction.” (People v. Mendoza, 203 SCRA 148, 157 [1991])

The Solicitor General, in
the appellee’s brief, cited People v. Tejada, 170 SCRA 497 [1989] to support its stand on
the non-presentation of the three (3) ten-peso bills. In said case, we have ruled that “so long as the marijuana
actually given by the appellant was presented before the lower court, the absence
of the marked money does not create a hiatus in the prosecution evidence.”
In the aforecited People v. Mendoza, supra at p. 158, we
have stated that:

x x x  x x x  x x x

“x x x [t]here
is one material factual difference between Tejada and the case at bar. In Tejada, the absence of evidence of the marked money arose from the fact
that the other law officers arrived
before the appellant could get the money. (Ibid, p. 504) Therefore, such money never came into play and presenting
the marked bills would have served no evidentiary value. In the present case, the appellant was
alleged to have received the money and was immediately apprehended thereafter. In fact, Pat. Manaois is supposed to have
retrieved the P100 bill from appellant.”

x x x  x x x  x x x

The factual circumstances
of the instant case are more similar to that of the case of Mendoza rather than
that of Tejada.

This case may be taken by
law enforcement officers as a setback in the government’s drive against traffic
in prohibited drugs, for after all, law officers are presumed to have performed
their duties regularly. Yet,
this presumption cannot, by itself, prevail over the constitutional presumption
of innocence of the accused. (People v.
Mendoza, supra, p. 159 citing People v. Canido, 167 SCRA 462 [1988])

WHEREFORE, the decision appealed from is hereby REVERSED
and SET ASIDE. The appellant is
ACQUITTED on grounds of reasonable doubt and ordered immediately RELEASED
unless he is detained on some other charge.

SO ORDERED.

Bidin, Davide, Jr., Romero, and
Melo, JJ., concur.