THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE, VS. NORMANDO DEL ROSARIO Y LOPEZ, ACCUSED-APPELLANT.

People versus Del Rosario

The Case

This is People versus Del Rosario, a criminal appeal in which the People of the Philippines prosecuted Normando del Rosario y Lopez for two offenses arising from a single night in Cavite City: illegal possession of a firearm and ammunition, and illegal sale of a regulated drug. The accused was convicted by the trial court and appealed to the Supreme Court. The case matters because the Court acquits on two grounds every bar candidate must be able to argue: the failure of the prosecution to present the poseur-buyer in a buy-bust operation, and the exclusion of a firearm seized outside the authority of a search warrant that described only shabu and its paraphernalia.

Procedural History

Two informations were filed against the accused before Branch 17 of the Regional Trial Court of the Fourth Judicial Region stationed in Cavite City. One charged illegal possession of firearm and ammunition; the other charged illegal sale of a regulated drug. Upon arraignment the accused pleaded not guilty to both charges, and the two cases were tried jointly. The trial court rendered a decision convicting him in both cases. In the firearm case it imposed an indeterminate prison term of seventeen years, four months and one day of reclusion temporal as minimum to twenty years of reclusion temporal as maximum. In the drug case it imposed life imprisonment and a fine of 30,000 pesos, without subsidiary imprisonment in case of insolvency, and ordered the shabu, the 100 peso bill and other paraphernalia confiscated in favor of the government. From that decision the accused interposed the present appeal, which reached the Supreme Court by ordinary appeal from the Regional Trial Court.

Facts

In the morning of September 4, 1991, upon the application of a police officer of the Philippine National Police of Cavite City, a judge of the Regional Trial Court issued a search warrant authorizing the search and seizure of an undetermined quantity of methamphetamine hydrochloride, commonly known as shabu, and its paraphernalia, in the premises of the accused's house at San Roque, Cavite City. The warrant was not implemented immediately for lack of police personnel to form a raiding team. At about nine o'clock in the evening a raiding team was organized, and in the final briefing it was agreed that a police officer, PO1 Venerando Luna, would buy shabu from the accused, and that after his return the team would implement the search warrant. He was given a marked 100 peso bill.

According to the prosecution, Luna and a companion went to the accused's house, the accused handed him shabu, and Luna paid with the marked bill and returned to the station. The raiding team then proceeded to the house and implemented the search warrant. A barangay captain and the accused's sister witnessed the search. The police found a black canister containing shabu, aluminum foil, a homemade caliber 22 revolver on top of the television set, three used ammunitions in a cup, and three wallets, one containing the marked money. Receipts were issued for the seized items and a return was made to the court. The next day the specimens were forwarded to a forensic chemist, whose findings were positive for methamphetamine hydrochloride.

The accused was arrested and detained in the living room while the police searched the other parts of the house. The two witnesses were fetched only after the policemen had already entered the residence. The poseur-buyer, Luna, was never presented as a witness at the trial.

Issues

• Whether or not the guilt of the accused for illegal sale of a regulated drug was proven beyond reasonable doubt, given the failure of the prosecution to present the poseur-buyer.
• Whether or not the accused may be convicted of illegal possession of shabu when the information charged only illegal sale.
• Whether or not the firearm and ammunition seized under a search warrant that described only shabu and its paraphernalia are admissible in evidence.

Applicable Provisions

Section 14, paragraph 2 of Article III of the Constitution provides:

In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall be presumed innocent until the contrary is proved.

This presumption places on the prosecution the burden of excluding every hypothesis consistent with innocence, a burden the Court found unmet.

Section 3, paragraph 2 of Article III of the Constitution provides:

Any evidence obtained in violation of this or the preceding section shall be inadmissible for any purpose in any proceeding.

This is the exclusionary rule that barred the firearm and ammunition from evidence.

Article 1458 of the Civil Code, cited by the Court to distinguish sale from possession, provides:

By the contract of sale one of the contracting parties obligates himself to transfer the ownership of and to deliver a determinate thing, and the other to pay therefor a price certain in money or its equivalent.

The Court used this definition to show that sale is a crime different from possession, which cannot be substituted in the information.

Ruling

On the first issue, the Court held that the prosecution failed to prove the illegal sale. The failure to call the poseur-buyer to the witness stand left a total absence of evidence of the sale. The testimonies of the other policemen were hearsay, because they were not present during the alleged sale and derived their knowledge solely from what Luna told them. The Court also found the prosecution's version contrary to human experience: in a buy-bust operation the police arrest the pusher at the very moment he hands over the drug, yet here no attempt was made to arrest him at that opportune moment. The Court quoted its earlier ruling that the failure of the prosecution to present the alleged buyer was a fatal flaw in the case against the accused.

On the second issue, the Court held that the accused cannot be convicted of possession of the shabu in the canister, because the information charged only selling shabu to a poseur-buyer. Sale is totally different from possession. To convict him of a crime not charged in the information would deny him due process of law.

On the third issue, the Court held that the search warrant authorized the seizure only of shabu and its paraphernalia, and was no authority to seize the firearm, which was not mentioned or described with particularity in the warrant. A search warrant is not a sweeping authority empowering a raiding party to undertake a fishing expedition. The firearm, having been illegally seized, is not admissible in evidence. With its exclusion, there was a total absence of evidence to support the charge of illegal possession of firearm, and the same held for the ammunition.

Doctrine

First, in a buy-bust operation the prosecution must present the poseur-buyer; without him, the testimonies of the other police officers as to the sale are hearsay and cannot sustain a conviction for illegal sale of a regulated drug.

Second, an accused may be convicted only of the crime charged in the information; sale and possession are distinct offenses, and conviction for possession under an information for sale violates due process.

Third, a search warrant must particularly describe the things to be seized and is not a sweeping authority for a fishing expedition; articles seized outside its scope are illegally seized and, under the exclusionary rule, inadmissible for any purpose in any proceeding.

Disposition

The Supreme Court reversed the decision appealed from and acquitted the accused in both cases, ordering his immediate release unless a valid cause for his detention exists, and confiscating the shabu, the marked 100 peso bill, the firearm and the ammunition in favor of the government.

Remember This

Memorize this line: no poseur-buyer, no sale; and a search warrant for shabu is no license to seize a gun. Examiners use this case to test the hearsay problem in buy-bust operations and the exclusionary rule against evidence seized beyond the four corners of a search warrant.