PEOPLE OF THE PHILLIPPINES, PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE, VS. CRISANTA SANCHEZ Y ABATILO, ACCUSED-APPELLANT.

Accused Crisanta Sanchez y Abatilo was convicted for violation of
Section 4, Article II of Republic Act 6425. She was sentenced to suffer the penalty of life imprisonment, to pay a
fine of twenty thousand pesos (P20,000.00) and to pay the costs.^[1]

The prosecution evidence established that on June 7, 1989, the
Anti-Narcotics and Vice Division of Cagayan de Oro received a report from a
confidential informant that a suspect has been peddling marijuana along Burgos
Street and Abellanosa-del Pilar Streets, Cagayan de Oro. On the basis of this information, narcotics
agents Jose Duallo and Eldegardo Gacuz were tasked to conduct a surveillance of
the area to determine the identity of the person involved in the distribution
of marijuana.^[2]
Their surveillance activities, particularly the reports they gathered from the
residents of the area, established that accused Crisanta Sanchez was engaged in
the sale and distribution of marijuana.^[3]

To confirm these reports, two (2) test-buy operations were
undertaken by the agents of the Anti-Narcotics and Vice Division. The first was conducted on June 29, 1989 at
about six o’clock in the evening. Narcotics agents Duallo and Gacuz positioned themselves at about ten
(10) to fifteen (15) meters from the residence of accused Sanchez. They instructed their decoy to go to
Sanchez’s house and act as the poseur-buyer. Accordingly, the agents saw their decoy purchase one (1) lid of
marijuana from Sanchez for fifty (P50.00) pesos. The marijuana was then turned over to agent Gacuz who kept it in
a cabinet in the Anti-Narcotics office.^[4]

Another test-buy operation was conducted by agents Duallo and
Gacuz on August 8, 1989. At about six
o’clock in the evening of that day, they again positioned themselves at
approximately ten (10) to fifteen (15) meters away from accused Sanchez’s
house. Again, they saw their decoy
purchase one (1) lid of marijuana (Exhibit “N”) from the accused for
fifty (P50.00) pesos at the latter’s residence.^[5] This
one (1) lid of marijuana was kept in the custody of agent Gacuz.^[6]
The results of both test-buy operations were recorded by agent Gacuz in his
logbook/record book (Exhibits “M” and “G”).^[7]

Thereafter, agents Duallo and Gacuz returned to their office and
executed a sworn statement detailing the result of their test-buy
operations. Consequently, a team of
narcotics agents headed by Sgt. Rico Cariño and Sgt. Velez, and composed of
agents Duallo, Gacuz, Anthony Eblacas and Rebecca Ng applied for a search
warrant on August 9, 1989 to get the bulk of marijuana from accused’s house.^[8]
The search warrant was duly issued by MTC Judge Downey Valdevilla on the same
day.^[9]

Armed with a search warrant, the narcotics agents stopped by the
house of barangay captain Samson Nagac at about one o’clock in the
afternoon. They requested Nagac to
accompany them to accused’s house for the service of the warrant.^[10]

The narcotics agents arrived at accused’s house at around three
o’clock in the afternoon. A certain Emilio
Dimagnaong, who likewise resided in accused’s house, informed them that accused
Sanchez was not around. The narcotics
agents decided to wait for the arrival of Sanchez. However, after the lapse of fifteen (15) minutes, Sgt. Velez
ordered his agents to proceed with the search.

The search yielded the following: 17 lids of marijuana lying on top of accused’s bed, covered by an
orange jacket;^[11]
three (3) lids of dried marijuana leaves on the wall or house post in the
living room; a sling and dart; a wallet containing a marijuana cigarette; and
plastic cellophanes used for packing marijuana on top of a table in the living
room.^[12]

After the search, Sgt. Cariño issued a receipt (Exhibit
“E”) for the articles seized from accused’s house. The receipt was signed by Dimagnaong and
barangay tanod Nagac who were both present during the search. Later that evening, the agents saw accused
Sanchez at the Operation Kahusayan at Kalinaw in Cagayan de Oro City where the
accused reported that her house was ransacked by robbers. Whereupon, the agents arrested Sanchez and
brought her to the Narcotics Office.^[13]

Consequently, Crisanta Sanchez y Abatilo was charged with the
sale of marijuana, a prohibited drug, in violation of Section 4, Article II of
R.A. 6425, as amended. The Information
reads:

“That on or about August 9, 1989, at about 3:00 o’clock in the
afternoon, at Burgos-del Pilar Streets, Cagayan de Oro City, Philippines, and
within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the above-named accused, did
then and there wilfully, unlawfully and feloniously, without authority of law,
sell, deliver, distribute and give away to the public twenty (20) lids of dried
marijuana leaves, and one (1) stick (of) marijuana cigarette which is a prohibited drug, and knowing the
same to be a prohibited drug which was then in her possession, custody and
control.

“Contrary to law.” (Original Records, p. 11)

At the trial, accused Sanchez denied having sold marijuana to
anyone.^[14]
She claimed that in the early part of June 1989, she allowed Dimagnaong to stay
in her house for free, in return for which, Dimagnaong agreed to render massage
services to her son who was afflicted with polio. Dimagnaong’s services were recommended to her by a neighbor,
Rosario Tabuada.^[15]
Sanchez explained that while Dimagnaong stayed in her house, she had occasion
to observe him receive visitors in her house who would talk to him in
whispers. She would then see Dimagnaong
sell these leaves to his visitors packed or wrapped in plastic. She insisted that the marijuana lids found
in her house belonged to Dimagnaong for she had previously seen these leaves in
his possession. However, at that time,
accused claimed that she did not know that these were marijuana leaves. Once, when she inquired from Dimagnaong
about the leaves, the latter told her that they were just herbs and medicinal
plants. Accused further disclaimed
ownership of the brown wallet, orange jacket, darts and slings and several
plastic bags seized from her house.^[16]

Accused further claimed that when the search was conducted by the
narcotics agents, she was in Lapasan, Cagayan de Oro City and was rendering
manicure services in the house of a certain Moises. Her husband was then at work and her four (4) children were in school. When accused returned to her house that
night, she saw all her things in disarray. She then discovered that she lost three thousand five hundred pesos
(P3,500.00). Dimagnaong was nowhere to
be found. Thinking that she was robbed,
she reported the incident to the Operation Kahusayan at Kalinaw where she was
subsequently arrested by the narcotics agents.^[17]
After her release from detention, she exerted efforts to locate Dimagnaong to
no avail.^[18]

Accused’s testimony was corroborated by Rosario Tabuada. She testified that Emilio Dimagnaong stayed
at her house for some time before the latter resided at accused’s house on June
1989. She further declared that while
Emilio stayed at her house, Emilio brought with him a green bag and an orange
jacket.^[19]

After the trial, a decision was rendered by Judge Anthony E.
Santos^[20]
finding the accused guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime charged.

Hence this appeal.

Accused-appellant contends that:

I.

THE LOWER COURT ERRED IN CONVICTING THE
ACCUSED FOR AN OFFENSE SHE HAD NOT COMMITTED AND HAD NOT BEEN PROVED.

II.

THE LOWER COURT FAILED TO CONSIDER THE
SIGNIFICANCE OF THE MEN’S WALLET, MEN’S (ORANGE) JACKET x x x, DART AND SLING
BELONGING TO EMILIO DIMAGNAONG WHICH ARE INDICATIVE ALSO OF THE OWNERSHIP OF THE
PROHIBITED DRUG SUBJECT OF THE CASE BY EMILIO DIMAGNAONG.

III.

THERE IS GRAVE AND SERIOUS DOUBT AS TO THE
GUILT OF THE ACCUSED WHICH THE LOWER COURT FAILED TO APPRECIATE AS TO ENTITLE
THE ACCUSED TO AN ACQUITTAL.

We find the appeal meritorious.

First. The
Information against the accused-appellant charged that on or about August 9,
1989 at 3 p.m., she wilfully and unlawfully sold to the public twenty (20) lids
of dried marijuana leaves.

The evidence of the prosecution, however, failed to establish the
allegations in the Information. By its
evidence, the Anti-Narcotics and Vice Division conducted two (2) test-buy
operations against accused-appellant. The first was undertaken on June 29, 1989 at 6 p.m. The second was on August 8, 1989, also at 6
p.m. In both instances, the agents
positioned themselves at a distance of 10 to 15 meters from the residence of
accused-appellant. Allegedly, they saw
accused-appellant sell one (1)
lid of marijuana for P50.00 to their decoy on each occasion. The
sale took place inside the house of accused-appellant. It is thus clear that the test sales took
place not on August 9, 1989 but on June 29, 1989 and August 8, 1989. Neither did the sale happen at 3 p.m. but at
6 p.m. Likewise, the sale only involved
one (1) lid of marijuana on June 29, 1989 and another lid of marijuana on
August 8, 1989. They did not involve
twenty (20) lids of marijuana leaves and one (1) stick of marijuana cigarette as alleged in the Information.

On the other hand,
the event that transpired on August 9, 1989 was not a sale of any marijuana but
the seizure of twenty (20) lids of marijuana leaves and one (1) stick of
marijuana cigarette in the room of accused-appellant as a consequence of the
service of a search warrant. Accused-appellant could not have sold any marijuana on that occasion for
she was not in her house when the search warrant was served. Obviously, the allegations in the
Information mistook the search that happened on August 9, 1989 with the test
sales conducted on June 29 and August 8, 1989. The result is fatal to the prosecution. The two test sales are not the subject of the Information charging
accused-appellant with violating Section 4, Article II of R.A. 6425. The evidence adduced to prove these two test
sales is not material to prove the Information as the latter relates to the
yield of the search conducted on the house of accused-appellant on August 9,
1989.

Second. Even
assuming arguendo that the Information relates to the test sales of June
29 and August 8, 1989, we find the evidence of the prosecution inadequate to
establish the charge. The prosecution
story suffers from fatal incredulities. It is not explained why
two (2) test-buy operations had to be conducted against accused-appellant. One test-buy operation would have been
sufficient to confirm her alleged illicit activity. Further, it would have been more in consonance with regular
police tactics if the second test-buy operation was used to entrap
accused-appellant in flagrante
delicto.

We are not also convinced that narcotic agents Duallo and Gacuz
actually saw accused-appellant sell one (1) lid of marijuana to their decoy on
June 29 and August 8, 1989. As borne by
the records, accused-appellant’s house was made of wood, with a small window and a balcony in front. The transactions took place at 6 p.m., and
the two (2) agents posted themselves at a
distance of ten (10) to fifteen (15) meters from the house of
accused-appellant. The sale of
marijuana transpired inside the house of accused-appellant. Under these circumstances, it is difficult
to believe that they were able to see the sale of one (1) tiny lid of marijuana
to their poseur-buyer.

The evidence of the prosecution could have been strengthened by
the presentation of the agents’ poseur?buyer. It is true that in a number of cases,^[21]
we ruled that the testimony of a
poseur-buyer is not indispensable to convict an accused for violation of R.A.
6425 as the same is merely
corroborative. The necessary premise of
these rulings is that said corroborative testimony can be dispensed with
considering the clarity of the prosecution evidence establishing the guilt of
the accused beyond reasonable doubt. Al contrario, when the totality of evidence of the
prosecution is unclear on whether there was an actual sale, as in the case at
bench, the testimony of the poseur-buyer becomes critical, if not decisive of
the issue. The crime imputed against
the accused-appellant carries the penalty of life imprisonment and her conviction
cannot rest on weak and anemic evidence.

Third. The
Court likewise entertains misgivings with respect to accused-appellant’s
alleged ownership of the articles seized from her residence. An examination of the records reveals that
agent Jose Duallo admitted on cross-examination that the brown wallet
containing one (1) lid of marijuana is of a
kind or type used by a man.^[22] As
to the identity of the orange jacket where the 17 lids of marijuana were found,
defense witness Rosario Tabuada testified that when Emilio Dimagnaong initially
stayed at her house, the latter brought with him a green bag and an orange
jacket.^[23]
This testimony was not challenged. We
also note that Emilio Dimagnaong sometimes sleeps in the room of
accused-appellant. Thus, the latter
testified on cross examination, viz:

“Q   Now,
your house has a room which serves as your sleeping quarter?

A    Yes, Sir. There is a plastic division.

Q    This serves as your room
and that of the immediate members of your family, is that correct?

A    Yes, Sir.

Q    This Emilio Dimagnaong
sleeps outside of that room?

A    Emilio Dimagnaong also
sleeps there sometimes.

Q     Are
you trying to inform this Honorable Court that Emilio Dimagnaong shares that
room who (sic) happens to be the sleeping quarter of your family?

A    Yes, Sir.

Q    Are you trying to inform
this Honorable Court that the members of your family tolerated the sleeping in
your room of Emilio Dimagnaong?

A    Yes, Sir, because during
daytime we left (sic) for work and our children also goes (sic) to school.

Q    Even if you are around
Emilio Dimagnaong still sleeps sometimes in that room, is that correct?

A    Yes,
Sir.” (TSN, October 23, 1990, pp. 54-55)

The prohibited items were taken in the
room sometimes shared by accused-appellant and Emilio Dimagnaong. The probability therefore that the said items
belonged to Dimagnaong is not far-fetched and casts serious doubt on the guilt
of the accused-appellant.

IN VIEW WHEREOF, the Decision in Criminal Case No. 89-627
of the RTC of Cagayan de Oro City, Branch 19, convicting accused-appellant Crisanta
Sanchez of violation of Section 4, Article II of RA 6425, as amended, is
REVERSED and SET ASIDE. No costs.

SO ORDERED.

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

^[1]
Decision, Rollo, pp. 48-55.

^[2]
TSN, May 17, 1990, pp. 40-41; TSN, September 19, 1990, pp. 74-75.

^[3]
TSN, May 17, 1990, pp. 40-41; TSN, September 19, 1990, p. 75.

^[4]
TSN, May 17, 1990, pp. 41-44; TSN, September 19, 1990, pp. 75-78.

^[5]
TSN, May 17, 1990, pp. 44 and 46; TSN,
September 19, 1990, pp. 78-79.

^[6]
TSN, May 17, 1990, p. 46.

^[7]
TSN, May 17, 1990, pp. 42 & 46; TSN, September 19, 1990, p. 77.

^[8]
TSN, May 17, 1990, p. 45.

^[9]
TSN, May 17, 1990, pp. 48-49; TSN, September 19, 1990, p. 81.

^[10]
TSN, April 4, 1990, pp. 19-20.

^[11]
TSN, January 26, 1990, p. 9.

^[12]
TSN, August 3, 1990, pp. 21-25.

^[13]
TSN, January 26, 1990, pp. 13-16.

^[14]
TSN, October 23, 1990, pp. 36 & 46.

^[15]
TSN, October 23, 1990, pp. 40-42.

^[16]
id., pp. 44-45.

^[17]
id., pp. 45-47. The amount was subsequently returned to accused upon
order of the trial court.

^[18]
TSN, October 23, 1990, p. 43.

^[19]
TSN, December 5, 1990, pp. 66-67.

^[20]
Rollo, pp. 48-55.

^[21]
People vs. Dag-uman, G.R. No.
96548, May 28, 1992, 209 SCRA 407; People vs. Fernandez, G.R. No. 86495,
May 13, 1992, 209 SCRA 1.

^[22]
TSN, May 18, 1990, p. 67.

^[23]
TSN, December 5, 1990, p. 67.