PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE, VS. RAUL CRUZ Y LALAW, ACCUSED-APPELLANT.

In an information filed on July 29, 1991 with the Regional Trial Court
of Valenzuela, Metro Manila, Branch 172, accused-appellant Raul Cruz y Lalaw
was charged with violation of Section 4, Article II of Republic Act No. 6425,
otherwise known as the Dangerous Drugs Act of 1972, for unlawfully selling and
delivering to one Pat. Cesar J. Pineda
several sticks of marijuana-treated cigarettes and marijuana dried leaves with
flowering tops.^[1]

On August 2, 1991, appellant, assisted by counsel de oficio, entered a plea of not guilty.^[2] After trial on the merits, the lower
court found said appellant guilty as charged in a decision dated November 8,
1991, and sentenced him to suffer the penalty of life imprisonment and to pay a
fine of P20,000.00, without subsidiary imprisonment in case of insolvency, and
to pay the costs. Appellant was
credited with the full term of his preventive imprisonment.^[3]

The basic and determinative issue to be resolved in the case at
bar is whether or not the guilt of appellant for the crime charged has been
proven beyond reasonable doubt, considering that, as contended by him, the
uncorroborated testimony of principal prosecution witness Pat. Cesar J. Pineda
is replete with material inconsistencies, as well as tell-tale signs of bias
and prejudice.

We have two opposing accounts of the events that led to and eventuated
in this criminal action. By and large,
the prosecution’s case rests primarily on the testimony of the aforementioned
Pat. Pineda of the Anti-Narcotics Unit, Valenzuela Police Station, a complete precis of which follows hereunder.

On June 23, 1991, at about 12:00 o’clock noon, Valenzuela police
officers assigned at the anti-narcotics unit held a meeting to discuss, among
others, the drug situation within their jurisdiction. Present therein were Sgt. Loreto Rodriguez, a certain Cpl.
Paguntalan, Pat. Alfredo Limson, Pfc. Maximo Constantino, Police Aide Crisanto
Zoriaga and Pat. Pineda. Acting on
reports that the sale of prohibited drugs was rampant on Sanchez Street, Arkong
Bato, Valenzuela, they decided to conduct a “buy-bust” operation
thereat. Information reaching their
office was to the effect that “Willy Sulit,” “Tony Kabayo,”
and herein appellant, Raul Cruz alias “Dalaw,”* were drug
pushers operating in said area. After
agreeing to entrap appellant Raul Cruz first, Pat. Pineda was designated as the
poseur-buyer, he having theretofore known appellant because of a prior
surveillance he conducted in collaboration with an “asset,” that is,
a police informer. Sgt. Rodriguez
handed a P20.00 bill to Pat. Pineda to be used in the operation and the latter
wrote the serial number of the bill in their official logbook and in his
calendar.^[4]

Pat. Pineda, along with Cpl. Paguntalan, Police Aide Soriaga and
Pfc. Dizon proceeded to Sanchez Street in an owner-type jeep. Pat. Pineda was wearing a basketball uniform,
while the others were also in civilian clothes.^[5]

About thirty (30) meters away from Sanchez Street, Pineda
alighted from the jeep and proceeded to look for appellant. Seeing the latter in an alley along Sanchez
Street at Arkong Bato, he asked him “Dalaw, mayroon ba tayo dyan
(?), kukuha sana ako.” Appellant inquired, “Bakit?“
and Pineda replied, “Pupunta sana ako kay Willie Sulit at bibili ako ng
damo.” Appellant Cruz answered, “Wala dyan. Sa akin na lang.“ Pineda
gave him the P20.00 bill and the latter went inside an alley. When Cruz returned, he got six sticks of
marijuana from his pocket and handed them to Pineda who immediately introduced
himself as a policeman and held appellant on the waistband. At this juncture, the other police officers moved
towards them and Pfc. Dizon handcuffed Cruz. A body search on him yielded three more marijuana sticks tucked in the
garter of the waistband of his underwear. Pineda ordered Cruz to bring out any more drugs that might be in his
possession but the latter answered that there was none, although there were
some in his house. They asked Cruz to
take them to his house and in front thereof, inserted in what looked like a
pile of garbage, they found dried marijuana leaves. Pineda prepared a receipt of the items recovered and asked Cruz
to sign it, after which Pineda also signed it. Pineda wrote his initials and the corresponding date on the nine sticks
of marijuana cigarettes and on the plastic bag containing the dried marijuana
leaves with flowering tops. Later,
appellant Cruz was brought to the police station.^[6]

On the witness stand, Mrs. Demelen Renton de la Cruz, forensic
chemist of the National Bureau of Investigation (NBI), declared that the nine
sticks of marijuana as well as the flowering tops submitted for microscopic,
chemical and chromatographic examination were found positive for marijuana.^[7]

On the other hand, appellant Raul Cruz
denies entirely the accusation of the prosecution and maintains that he is a
mere sampaguita flower vendor at Sangandaan, Kalookan. At about 2:35 P.M. on July 23, 1991, while
crossing the street to board a jeep at the corner of Arkong Bato, Valenzuela,
Metro Manila, he was apprehended by Pineda, a barangay tanod called
“Sonny,” and a man whose name he does not know. They frisked him but found nothing. He was ordered to reveal the residence of
“Willy Sulit” and “Tony Kabayo.” Failing to do so, his
hands were tied behind his back and he was forced to bring them to his
house. Upon reaching the house, they
also frisked his brother-in-law, Armand, and his younger sister but, again,
they found nothing. “Sonny”
and the unnamed person went upstairs and when they later came down, they had
with them something wrapped in plastic, which when shown to him, appeared to be
marijuana. He vigorously denied
ownership thereof, but he was nevertheless brought to the Polo Emergency
Hospital for medical examination and, later, to the police headquarters. His brother-in-law and his sister did not
accompany him because they were afraid. While in the police headquarters, he was asked if he would reveal the
whereabouts of “Willy Sulit”
and “Tony Kabayo” in exchange for his release and the dropping of any
charge against him. However, he failed
to do so because, in reality, he did not have that information.^[8]

The grave and continuing threat posed by drugs against society is
well known and indisputable. Accordingly, the campaign of the Government against drug trafficking
must receive the fullest cooperation and support of all sectors of the public
service, particularly the judiciary. Courts trying narcotics cases must not impede or frustrate the
prosecution thereof on mere legal or procedural technicalities. Of these imperatives, this Court is only too
aware.

Be that as it may, the Court is also cognizant of the fact that
the practice of planting evidence for extortion, as a means to compel one to
divulge information or merely to harass witnesses is not uncommon. By the very nature of anti-narcotics operations,
with the need for entrapment procedures, the use of shady characters as
informants, the ease with which sticks of marijuana or grams of heroin can be
planted in pockets or hands of unsuspecting provincial hicks, and the secrecy
that inevitably shrouds all drug deals, the possibility of abuse is great.^[9] Hence, courts must be extra vigilant
in trying drug charges lest an innocent person be made to suffer the unusually
severe penalties for drug offenses.^[10]

With these contrapuntal themes in mind, we will not hesitate to
review or reverse the findings of the lower court if its judgment is based on a
misapprehension of facts,^[11]
although we likewise adhere to the principle that factual findings of the trial
court should normally be accorded the highest degree of respect by the
appellate courts, said lower court having had the opportunity to intimately
observe the manner in which the witnesses of the contending sides testified.^[12]

In the case now before us, there is undeniably an exigent need to
carefully look into the credibility and competence of Pat. Pineda, the trial
court having relied heavily and principally on his testimony. In fact, an examination of the records will
readily show that the guilt or innocence of appellant Cruz hinges on the issue
of Pineda’s credibility. The other
witness, NBI forensic chemist De la Cruz, merely identified the nine marijuana
sticks and dried flowering tops submitted to their office for examination and
then reported her findings thereon. Obviously, however, she could only testify as to the marijuana handed
over to her by the police officers, but definitely not with regard to the
alleged act of selling thereof by appellant for she was admittedly not present
during the alleged buy-bust operation.

After a thoroughgoing scrutiny and meticulous evaluation of the
records of this case, the Court is of the firm belief that there are sufficient
grounds which should justly and indubitably lead to the exoneration of herein
appellant.

The lower court, although observing that there was indeed an
inconsistency in the testimony of Pat. Pineda, was nonetheless inclined to
disregard the same. In its decision, it
stated thus: “x x x. The Court noted a discrepancy in the
testimony of this police officer on the particular act of drug pushing. That is – (t)his police officer testified on
direct examination that when he approached the accused he said ‘Dalao mayroon
ba tayo diyan? Kukuha sana ako.’ Then,
on cross-examination Pat. Cesar Pineda testified that his first words to the
accused were not ‘Dalao mayroon ba tayo diyan (?)’ Instead he first asked for
Willy Sulit. On further
cross-examination, this police officer said he is changing his answer.”^[13]

The trial court, however, considered this inconsistency as
involving only a minor detail, supposedly too insignificant to affect the case
for the People. Indulging the Court
below by conceding that it may possibly be so, the fact remains that neither it
nor the parties noticed the other major and evident discrepancies in the
testimony of Pat. Pineda on various aspects, which cannot but raise well?founded
and overriding doubts on his credibility. After all, evidence, to be believed, must not only proceed from the
mouth of a credible witness, but it must be credible in itself.^[14] We start with his sworn statement of
July 24, 1991 executed before State Prosecutor Amelito Perfecto at Valenzuela,
Metro Manila.^[15]

In that Sinumpaang Salaysay prepared and sworn to by Pat.
Pineda shortly after the arrest of appellant, he detailed the alleged buy-bust
operation, a portion of his narration being as follows:

“Na, iniabot ko sa kanya ang halagang beinte pesos na
marked money at kanya namang itong kinuha sa akin at bumunot siya sa kanyang
harapang kanang bulsa ng pantalon ang anim (6) na stick ng marijuana at
kanya itong ibinigay sa akin at sa pagkakataong ito ako ay nagpakilalang isang
pulis Valenzuela x x x.”^[16] (Underscoring ours.)

From the aforequoted statement, Pineda definitely asserts that
when he gave the P20.00 bill to Cruz, the latter immediately gave him in return
six sticks of marijuana cigarettes. And
yet, in his direct examination, Cruz gave an altogether different account of
the alleged sale. He testified that
after he handed over to Cruz the P20.00 bill, the latter went inside the
alley, while he just waited for Cruz to return. When Cruz returned; he got from his pocket six sticks of
marijuana cigarettes and handed them to Pineda.^[17] This glaring contradiction was never
explained by the prosecution nor was there ever any attempt to do so.

Again, a further comparison of Cruz’ sworn statement and his
testimony reveals another major discrepancy. In that sworn statement, Pineda narrated what happened next, as above
stated, after he identified himself to Cruz as a police officer, thus:

“x x x sa pagkakataong ito ako ay
nagpakilalang isang pulis Valenzuela at aking siyang hinawakan at hinuli at nakuha
ko pa rin (sa) kanyang pagiingat ang tatlong (3) stick na marijuana at isang
plastic bag na mayroong laman na pinatuyong dahon ng marijuana at ang aming
marked money.”^[18] (Emphasis supplied.)

In diametrical apposition, however, during his direct examination
he gave an entirely different version of how they were able to obtain the
marijuana leaves, to wit:

“Q:   After
you have already frisked the accused and you again recovered another three
sticks from his waistband, what happened next?

A:    I ordered him to bring
out the other pieces of evidence but he said there is nothing more.

Q:   After that what did you
do?

A:    He said there are no
more rolled sticks of marijuana but in his house and placed inside the plastic
bag.

Q:   When you were
informed that he has still marijuana in his house, what did you do next?

A:    We asked him to
accompany us (to) his house, sir.

Q:   And asked to get the
marijuana which he was mentioning?

A:    Yes, sir.

Q:   Did he accede?

A:    Yes, sir.

Q:   And you proceeded to
his house?

A:    Yes, sir.

Q:   Were you able to
recover these marijuana leaves?

A:    Yes, sir.

Q:   How were you able to
get the marijuana?

A: In front of his
house also because he was living in the squatter(s) area, it looks like a pile
of garbage and just inserted there, sir.”^[19] (Underscoring supplied.)

On cross-examination by defense counsel precisely to test the
credibility of said testimony, he somersaulted and again contradicted those
very statements which he himself gave on direct examination:

“Q:   When
he was (i)n handcuff(s) you led him to his house?

A:    No, sir.

Q:   You want to impress
(upon) this Court that you did not go to the house of the accused?

A:    No, we did not, sir.

Q: You went there because the accused voluntar­ily told you that there were
still some marijuana stuff in the house and you went there and you got the
marijuana from the house?

A:    No, sir.

Q:   Are you very sure of
your answer?

A:    No, sir, we did not
go to the house be­cause we immediately brought him to our chief.”^[20] (Emphasis ours.)

The question of whether or not in fact they went to the house of
appellant Cruz is decidedly not a minor detail. The nine sticks of handrolled marijuana cigarettes had a total
weight of only 4.7936 grams while the marijuana flowering tops weighed 18.0623
grams.^[21] It is obvious then that the marijuana
flowering tops formed a big and major portion of the marijuana seized by Pat. Pineda. Hence, it does not inspire belief that said
arresting officer could have easily forgotten whether or not they proceeded to
the house of Cruz to get the same. It
may be possible, although highly improbable, that he could have forgotten the
sequence of the events that transpired, but not the events themselves which
took place during the buy-bust operation, especially if we consider his being a
trained and experienced member of an anti-narcotics unit.

In appellee’s brief, the Solicitor General would like to quibble
and split hairs on this matter, stating that “as claimed by the latter
even during his direct examination, he and his companions did not actually
enter appellant’s house, which was in the squatter(s) area, but found and
retrieved more of the prohibited stuff outside and in front of the house near a
place which looked like a pile of garbage.”^[22]
However, regardless of whether they went inside the house or merely in front
thereof, still it cannot be denied that Pat. Pineda gravely contradicted himself
during the cross-examination when he insisted that they confiscated the dried
marijuana flowering tops right after the so-called frisking or body search
conducted by them on the appellant in the street after the alleged sale.

Again, in his sworn statement, Pat. Pineda specified that they
were able to seize “pinatuyong dahon ng marijuana,”^[23]
in addition to the marijuana sticks. In
the receipt of property seized, he stated “dried marijuana leaves with
flowering tops“^[24]
while, as earlier explained, the NBI forensic chemistry section certification^[25]
says only “dried marijuana flowering (sic) tops.”
If Pineda had intended to tell the truth, he should not have taken so lightly
his duty to report facts with accuracy and not with ambiguity. A layman may mistake one of the above
illegal items for the other, but not a member of an anti-narcotics unit who is
precisely trained to easily recognize and identify the different prohibited
drugs, as well as the different parts thereof.

Jurisprudence teaches us that where the sworn statement given
during the preliminary examination conflicts with that given during the trial,
and the variance in the answers of the witness is greatly disturbing and
irreconcilable, the testimony of the said witness should not be given in
evidence, as the discrepancy in the witness’ statements shows that he was
either lying when he executed it or he had simply forgotten what he truly
witnessed. Simply stated, serious and
inexplicable discrepancies between a previously executed sworn statement of a
witness and his testimonial declarations as to the appellant’s participation in
the commission of a crime raise a grave doubt on the veracity of his account.^[26]

If we are to believe Pat. Pineda’s testimony that Cruz is a
notorious drug peddler, then the latter would not have been so naive as to
volunteer the fact that there was still some more marijuana hidden in his
house. In fact, Pat. Pineda partially
corroborated Cruz’ testimony that he brought the police officers to his house,
except only that they gave different versions on what happened afterwards.

Also, if Pat. Pineda really had an “asset” with whom he
made the preliminary surveillance, it is surprising why that “asset”
was not used as the poseur-buyer, considering the prosecution’s claim that he
had successfully bought prohibited drugs before from appellant. He would naturally arouse less suspicion
than a member of the anti-narcotics unit buying directly from a drug pusher. Again, if Cruz is a notorious drug peddler,
he would have made it a point to know who were the members of the
anti-narcotics unit in their place. In
fact, Cruz testified that Pineda and his informer, “Sonny,” were
well-known in their neighborhood.

On top of these, in his direct examination, Pineda declared that
he was able to confiscate three more sticks of marijuana “stucked (sic) in
the garter of (Cruz’) brief wrapped inside the plastic,”^[27] However, under cross-examination, he
asserted that “three more sticks of marijuana and plastic containing
marijuana tops x x x (were) found at the back of the pocket of his pants.”^[28]

Now, when Cruz was
arrested, Pineda allegedly showed the former his identification card
(I.D.). It is rather odd that a police
officer, acting as a poseur-buyer, would take the trouble and risk of bringing
with him something that could easily alert and definitely inform a drug pusher
of his identity as a lawman and thereby put the whole operation in jeopardy. This is further puzzling since he knew that
he could rely on his other fellow officers who were present there to serve as a
back-up and support group.

There is, of course, the legal presumption that law enforcers are
supposed to have regularly performed their duties in the absence of proof to
the contrary.^[29]
Withal, such presumption juris tantum of regularity in the
performance of official duty cannot by itself prevail against the
constitutional presumption of innocence accorded an accused person.^[30]

After all, as early as People vs. Pacana,^[31] we have announced and always adhered
to the principle that when 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. To paraphrase a well-known
tenet, accusation is not, according to the fundamental law, synonymous with guilt;
the prosecution must overthrow the presumption of innocence with proof of guilt
beyond reasonable doubt. The proof
against him must survive the test of reason; the strongest suspicion must not
be permitted to sway judgment.^[32] Even if the defense is weak, the case
against the accused must fail if the prosecution is even weaker, for the
conviction of the accused must rest not on the weakness of the defense but on
the strength of the prosecution.^[33]

We are not disposed to hazard a surmise as to why prosecution
witness Pineda made the inconsistent statements analyzed above. He may have done so through unwitting error,
but the fact remains that even the inanimate pages of the records amply provide
eloquent bases for rejection of his testimony. All told, therefore, the Court holds that the prosecution has failed to
establish the guilt of herein appellant with the requisite quantum of evidence.

ACCORDINGLY, the impugned judgment of conviction in
Criminal Case No. 396-V-91 of the court a quo is REVERSED and SET ASIDE and
accused appellant Raul Cruz y Lalaw is hereby ACQUITTED of the charge therein,
with costs de oficio. His
immediate release from confinement is hereby ordered, unless there is any other
lawful cause for his continued detention.

SO ORDERED.

Narvasa, C.J., (Chairman), Padilla, and Puno, JJ., concur.

^[1]
Original Record, 1.

^[2]
Ibid., 8.

^[3]
Ibid., 64; Decision, 6; per Judge Teresita
Dizon-Capulong.

* Also spelled “Dalao”
in some portions of the record and the petition.

^[4]
TSN, August 5, 1991, 4-8, 10.

^[5]
Ibid., id., 8.

^[6]
Ibid., id., 10-17; September 18, 1991, 2-4.

^[7]
Ibid., September 11, 1991, 5.

^[8]
Ibid., October 18, 1991, 4-5.

^[9]
People vs. Salcedo, G.R. No. 86975,
March 18, 1991, 195 SCRA 345.

^[10]
People vs. William, et al., G.R. No. 93712, June 15, 1992, 209 SCRA 808.

^[11]
People vs. Castillon, et al., G.R. No. 100586, Janua­ry 15, 1993, 217
SCRA 76.

^[12]
People vs. Uson, G.R. No. 101313,
July 5, 1993.

^[13]
Original Record, 63; Decision, 5.

^[14]
People vs. Uson, ante; Fn. 12.

^[15]
Exhibit I; Folder of Exhibits, 6.

^[16]
Original Record, 3.

^[17]
TSN, August 5, 1991, 12-13.

^[18]
Original Record, 3.

^[19]
TSN, August 5, 1991, 16-17.

^[20]
Ibid., October 4, 1991, 2-3.

^[21]
Exhibit B, Certification of NBI Forensic Chemistry Section, dated July 24,
1991; Folder of Exhibits 2.

^[22]
Rollo, 55.

^[23]
Original Record, 3.

^[24]
Exhibit E; Folder of Exhibits, 4.

^[25]
Exhibit B; ibid., 2. See also Exhibit C, NBI Dangerous Drugs
(Marihuana) Report No. DDM-91-500, dated July 24, 1991, which
states: “3. Alleged dried
marihuana flowering tops placed in a stapled plastic bag with
label;” Folder of Exhibits, 3.

^[26]
People vs. Casim, G.R. No. 93634, September 2, 1992, 213 SCRA 390.

^[27]
TSN, August 5, 1991, 15.

^[28]
Ibid., October 4, 1991, 3.

^[29]
Sec. 5 (m), Rule 131, Rules of Court; People vs. Mariano, G.R. No. 86656, October 31, 1990, 191 SCRA
136.

^[30]
People vs. Salcedo, G.R. No. 86975, March 18, 1991, 195 SCRA 345.

^[31]
47 Phil. 48 (1924).

^[32]
People vs. Austria, et al., G.R. No. 55109, April 8, 1991, 195 SCRA 700.

^[33]
People vs. Cruz, G.R. No. 87884, November 4, 1992, 215 SCRA 339.