PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE, VS. AURORA ESCALONA Y GIMPAYAN, ACCUSED-APPELLANT.

Appeal from the decision dated November 25, 1991 of the Regional Trial
Court of Manila, Branch 16, con­victing the appellant, Aurora Escalona y
Gimpayan, of having violated Section 15, Article III, in relation to Section 2
(c), (f), (m), (o), Article I of Republic Act No. 6425, as amended (otherwise
known as The Dangerous Drugs Law) and sentencing her to suffer the penalty of
life imprisonment.

The case for the prosecution stands on the lone testimony of Pfc.
Eduardo Mabaet alleging that:

Upon receipt of confidential information that one alias
“Maricar” of 584 Interior San Andres Street, Malate, Manila, is the
source of dangerous drugs (shabu) in Ermita, Manila, a buy-bust team composed
of Pfc. Eduardo Mabaet, Pfc. Francisco Maniquiz, Pat. Arnulfo Castañeda and the
informant was allegedly organized by P/Capt. Felix B. Garcia of the
Anti-Narcotics Unit, Police Station No. 5, Western Police District.

After a week of surveillance, the team allegedly decided to
strike on July 9, 1991 at about 1:30 o’clock in the morning. Pfc. Mabaet, allegedly disguised as a drug
addict, and the informer posted themselves in front of the house of the
suspect. When the suspect appeared, the
informant addressed her thus: “Bigyan mo ako ng P200.00” (p. 97, Rollo). Pfc. Mabaet forthwith handed to her two
marked P100.00 bills. The suspect entered
her house. After a while, she came out
of the house and handed to Pfc. Mabaet a package supposed to contain shabu
wrapped in aluminum foil.

After examining the contents of the package, Pfc. Mabaet gave the
pre-arranged signal. Pfc. Maniquiz and
Pat. Castañeda allegedly closed in and helped Pfc. Mabaet to arrest the
suspect. Upon search of her per­son,
Pfc. Maniquiz seized from her the two marked P100.00 bills and two small
transparent plastic bags containing what was believed to be shabu residue.

Upon chemical analysis, the confiscated crystal­-line substance
wrapped in aluminum foil and in two small plastic packets was confirmed to be
methamphetamine hydrochloride or shabu.

The following information was filed against the appellant
charging her with violation of Section 15, Article III in relation to Section 2
(c), (f), (m), (o), Article I of the Dangerous Drugs Law (RA 6425):

“That on or about July 9, 1991, in the City of Manila, Philip­pines,
the said accused, not having been authorized by law to sell, dispense, deliver,
transport or distribute any regulated drug, did then and there wilfully and
unlaw­fully sell or offer for sale two (2) decks of white crystalline substance
wrapped with aluminum foil and placed in small transparent plastic bag with
markings known as ‘SHABU’
containing methamphetamine hydrochloride, which is a regulated drug.” (p.
16, Rollo.)

On arraignment, the accused pleaded “not guilty.” After
trial, the lower court rendered judgment convict­ing her as charged and
sentencing her:

“I. To life
imprisonment and to pay a fine of P20,000.00. She is to be accorded full benefits of her preventive imprisonment.

“II. To pay costs.

“The seized evidence shall be forfeited in favor of the
Philippine Government.” (p. 27, Rollo.)

The accused appealed to this Court in due time seeking reversal
of the decision on the grounds that the trial court erred:

1. in convicting the accused on the lone testimony of a police
poseur-buyer, despite its severe inadequacies and inconsistencies;

2. in completely disregarding
the defense of the accused, thus, erroneously convicting the accused in the
process; and

3. in convicting the
accused despite insufficiency of evidence and absence of proof beyond reasona­ble
doubt, hence, contrary to the facts and the law.

These assignments of error boil down to the issue of the
credibility of the lone prosecution witness.

It is an ancient principle of our penal system that no one shall
be found guilty of crime except upon proof beyond reasonable doubt (Perez vs.
Sandiganbayan, et al., 180 SCRA 9).

The trial court’s reliance on the lone testimony of Pfc. Mabaet
in convicting the appellant does not satisfy the quantum of evidence required
in criminal cases, that is, proof beyond reasonable doubt.

The lone testimony of a policeman may not be relied upon in
imposing the capital penalty of life imprisonment upon the accused when there
is serious doubt concerning his motive, in view of the appellant’s testimony
that bad blood exists between her husband and Pfc. Mabaet.

The prosecution’s failure to present the other members of the
alleged buy-bust team casts serious doubts on the appellant’s guilt. Considering the gravi­ty of the penalty for
the offense charged, courts should be careful in receiving and weighing the
probative value of the testimony of an alleged poseur-buyer especially when it
is not corroborated by any of his teammates in the alleged buy-bust operation
(People vs. Honrada, 204 SCRA 858). The
prosecution must rely on the strength of its own evidence and not on the weakness
of the defense (People vs. Santillan, 157 SCRA 534).

The final blow to the prosecution’s case was dealt by the sworn
statement dated December 2, 1991 of the confidential informant named Fernando
Maronia who was supposedly with the buy-bust group and the one who allegedly
introduced Pfc. Mabaet to the appellant. He denied Pfc. Mabaet’s allegation that he (Maronia) posed as buyer of
marijuana cigarettes from the appellant. The relevant portions of his statement are quoted here under as follows:

“SINUMPAANG
SALAYSAY”

“xxx                       xxx                   xxx.

“4. Subalit hindi po totoo
na ako ay bumili ng ‘methamphetamine hydrochloride’ o ang tinatawag na ‘shabu’
mula kay Gng. Escalona na sinasabi ni Pat. Mabaet;

“5. Na ako nga po ay
naroroon upang iabot kay Gng. ESCALONA o kung tawagin sa amin ay ‘Baby’ ang
isang hose ng tubig sapagkat sila ay kumukuha ng tubig sa gripo na malapit sa
aming bahay;

“6. Ngunit wala po akong
binibiling ‘shabu’ kay Baby at wala namang ‘shabu’ na ipinagbibili sa akin si
Pat. Mabaet;

“7. Na wala pong iniabot si Gng. ESCALONA na sinasabing two (2) decks ng
‘shabu’ raw kay Pat. Mabaet, sa akin daw pong harapan. Ito po ay isang malaking pagkakamali;

“8. Kalungkut-lungkot
pong pangyayari na ang pangalan ko ay nasangkot sa pangyayaring ito ng hindi ko
nalalaman na ayon daw po sa testimonya ni Pat. Mabaet, subalit hindi po ito
totoo;

“9. Na ginawa ko ang salaysay na ito upang
ipabatid sa mga kinauu­kulan ang mga tunay na pangyayari at buong katotohanan
sapagkat hindi maatim ng aking kalooban na may mga taong magdadanas ng hirap sa pangya­yaring ito na marahil ay
ako lamang ang makapagpapatunay o makapagbibi­gay liwanag;

“10. Na ginawa ko po ang
salaysay na ito nang kusang-loob at walang nanakot, nagbayad, nagbigay ng
gantimpala or anupa mang pangako para sa aking sarili at tahasang sinasabi ko
na ang aking layunin lamang ay maituwid ang tunay na nangyari at bigyan ng
linaw ang nangyari noong ika-9 ng Hulyo, 1991;

“11. Na handa po akong huma­rap
sa hukuman at tumestigo upang liwanagin at bigyang katotohanan ang aking
nabanggit dito sa anumang oras na
ako ay kailanganin.

“Bilang patotoo, ako ay lumagda ngayong ika-2 ng Disyembre,
1991 sa Maynila, Pilipinas.” (pp. 49-50, Rollo.)

As the prosecution’s evidence in this case is insufficient to
prove the appellant’s guilt beyond a reasonable doubt, the judgment of
conviction must yield to the constitutional presumption of her innocence
(Aguirre vs. People, 155 SCRA 337).

WHEREFORE, the Court ACQUITS the accused, Aurora Escalona,
of the charge against her and orders that she be immediately released from
custody unless she is being held to answer for another offense. Costs de oficio.

SO ORDERED.

Cruz, (Chairman), Davide, Jr., Bellosillo, and Quiason, JJ.,
concur.