PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE, VS. ROMULO BUENAVENTURA Y VILLARUEL, ACCUSED-APPELLANT.

Accused-appellant Romulo Buenaventura y Villaruel, together with Eduardo
Mapa y Anghelical, were charged before the Regional Trial Court of Iloilo City,
Branch 39, with violation of Republic Act No. 6425, as amended, otherwise known as the Dangerous
Drugs Act, in an information dated 3 May 1989 reading as follows:

“That on or about the 28^th day of April
1989, in the City of Iloilo, Philippines, and within the juris­diction of this
Honorable Court, herein accused, conspiring, confederating and helping one
another, with deliberate and without any justifiable motive, did then and there
wilfully, unlawfully and criminally sell and/or distribute dried marijuana
leaves, a source
of prohibited drug, without authority to sell and or distribute the same; that
ten (10) grams of dried marijuana leaves and seeds and one (1) fifty (50) peso
marked bill were
recovered.

CONTRARY TO LAW.” ^[1]

When arraigned, both accused assisted by their counsel pleaded
not guilty. However, accused Eduardo
Mapa later agreed to plead to a lesser offense under Section 8, Article II
of Republic Act. No. 6425 and was sentenced accordingly. Trial thus proceeded only against
accused-appellant Romulo Buenaventura.

On 10 June 1993, the trial court rendered a decision*, the
dispositive part of which reads:

“WHEREFORE, premises considered, the accused Romulo
Buenaventura is hereby found guilty beyond reasonable doubt of Violation of
Section 4, Article II of RA 6425, as amended, and is hereby sentenced to suffer
life imprisonment and to pay a fine of P20,000.00 and the costs.

The ten grams of dried marijuana leaves and seeds are hereby
ordered confiscated and forfeited in favor of the government and shall be
turned over to the Board through the National Bureau of Investigation (NBI) for
proper disposal as provided under Section 20, RA 6425.

The marked money consisting of P50.00 is hereby ordered to be
returned to the 6th Narcotics Command, at Gen. Luna St., Iloilo City.

SO ORDERED.”^[2]

The facts, as found by the trial court, are as follows:

“On April 28, 1989, at about 11:30 in the morning, Sgt. Freddie
Cartel and Francisco Allaga were instructed by their Commanding Officer, Capt.
Rustico Francisco to conduct a buy-bust operation at or along Delgado Street,
Iloilo City. That the order to conduct
‘buy-bust’ operation was based on reports that ‘drug pushing’ is rampant in
that street. They were instructed to
proceed to the corner store located at the corner of Jalandoni and Delgado
Streets, Iloilo City.

Upon arrival at the corner store, Freddie Cartel as previously
agreed, posed as buyer while Sgt. Allaga acted as a back-up or look-out and
stationed himself across the street or at the other side of the street.

When Freddie Cartel reached the store, he asked some bystanders
about a person
by the name of alias ‘Cano’ who later turned out to be Eduardo Mapa. When he was introduced to Eduardo Mapa,
Freddie Cartel told him that he wanted to buy marijuana. Eduardo Mapa asked him how much he would
like to buy and Freddie Cartel answered P50.00.

Freddie Cartel took from his pocket the marked money, in the amount
of P50.00 with Serial No. VF-926531 and gave it to Mapa. Eduardo Mapa took the marked money in the
amount of P50.00 and boarded a Lapaz bound passenger jeepney.

After about 40 minutes, Eduardo Mapa came back with marijuana
wrapped in a plastic and was about to deliver it to Freddie Cartel.

However, before Eduardo Mapa handed the Marijuana to Freddie
Cartel, the latter made the pre-­arranged signal, by scratching his head, and
Sgt. Allaga who was across the street approached them and frisked Eduardo Mapa,
and the marijuana was taken from the possession of Eduardo Mapa. He was then brought to the Narcom
headquarters at General Luna Street, Iloilo City, for investigation.

Upon investigation, Eduardo Mapa revealed that he took the
marijuana from the other accused Romulo Buenaventura alias ‘Along’ or ‘Talong’
who is residing at Brgy. Luna, Lapaz, Iloilo City.

A follow-up operation was launched by Francisco Allaga and Freddie
Cartel, accompanied by other agents namely; Sgt. Felecio, Cabasa and
Bonite. They conducted the follow up
operation at about 1:10 p.m.. They
proceeded to Brgy. Luna accompanied by Eduardo Mapa, who guided them.

When they reached Brgy. Luna, Eduardo Mapa pointed to the place of
residence of Romulo Buenaventura, who was found washing his clothes at the
water pump or artesian well. They asked
permission to frisk him and to search him and he consented. Francisco Allaga frisked Romulo Buenaventura
and found the marked money of P50.00 with Serial No. VF-926531 on his right pocket. It was the same marked
money which Freddie Cartel handed to Eduardo Mapa.

Buenaventura was brought to the NARCOM office and charged for
violation of Section 4 of Republic Act 6425″.^[3]

Accused-appellant Romulo Buenaventura, while admitting that he
was washing dishes at an artesian well when arrested, denied that he supplied
marijuana to Eduardo Mapa. He further
denied that the marked P50.00 bill was found on him. Buenaventura alleged that he was detained for three (3) days at
Camp Delgado and that Sgt. Freddie Cartel was asking him for P10,000.00
“to settle his case”.

The judgment of conviction rendered by the trial court was based
on findings as to the credibility of witnesses for the prosecution as well as
the conclusion that the positive evidence of the prosecution outweighed that of
the defense which consisted of bare denials.

Accused-appellant, in his appeal to this Court, assigned the
following errors to the trial court:

“1. IN FINDING THAT
THE APPELLANT CONSPIRED WITH EDUARDO MAPA TO SELL MARIJUANA;

2. IN CONVICTING THE APPELLANT DESPITE THE
ILLEGALITY OF HIS WARRANTLESS ARREST.”^[4]

The Solicitor General filed a “Manifestation and
Motion” in lieu of the appellee’s brief, which likewise seeks a reversal
of the conviction of accused-appellant Romulo Buenaventura y Villaruel. The Solicitor General’s recommendation is
based on arguments that:

1. The prosecution’s
evidence is insufficient to overcome the constitutional presumption of
innocence.

2. There is no evidence of
conspiracy between accused-appellant and co-accused Eduardo Mapa.

3. The marked money is
inadmissible in evidence or, assuming it is admissible, it is insufficient for
conviction.

We agree that accused-appellant’s guilt has not been proved
beyond reasonable doubt and consequently we reverse the judgment convicting
him.

It is of note that Eduardo Mapa, through his counsel, offered to
plead guilty to the lesser offense of possession of marijuana under Section 8,
Article II of Rep. Act. No. 6425, even before the two (2) members of the
buy-bust team, Sgt. Francisco Allaga and PO3 Freddie Cartel, had
testified. This indicates that Mapa
could not overcome the testimonies of the two (2) police officers to the effect
that he was about to deliver marijuana to PO3 Cartel in return for the P50 bill
Mapa had earlier received from PO3 Cartel, when the buy-bust team pounced on
him (Mapa). A review of the transcripts
of the testimonies of Sgt. Allaga and PO3 Cartel indeed shows that Eduardo
Mapa’s decision to plead guilty to possession of marijuana was a sensible move
on his part since the testimonies of the two (2) police officers clearly show
that Mapa was poised to deliver marijuana leaves to PO3 Freddie Cartel who
acted as the poseur-buyer in the buy-bust operation. Had Eduardo Mapa not pleaded guilty to the lesser offense of
possession of marijuana, the evidence for the prosecution undoubtedly would
have resulted in his conviction for drug pushing.

Eduardo Mapa’s guilt however does not necessarily lead to the
conclusion that accused-appellant Romulo Buenaventura is also guilty. The peculiar facts of this case require that
accused-appellant’s participation, if any, in the crime committed be determined
independently from that of Mapa.

It cannot be disputed that the buy-bust operation conducted by
the NARCOM agents ended when Eduardo Mapa was apprehended just when he was
about to hand over the marijuana subject of the sale to PO3 Freddie Cartel. The subsequent “follow-up
operation” which resulted in the arrest of accused-appellant cannot be
construed as a
continuation of the buy-bust operation.

The prosecution contends that Eduardo Mapa pointed to
accused-appellant as the source of the marijuana sold to PO3 Cartel. This revelation, allegedly made by Mapa,
became the basis of the “follow-up” operation. However, the failure of the prosecution to
present Eduardo Mapa is fatal to the case against accused-appellant, for
without Mapa’s testimony, the assertions of the members of the buy-bust team
that he (Mapa) pointed to the accused-appellant as his source of the prohibited
drug is hearsay evidence which is inadmissible against accused-appellant.

Furthermore, since the follow-up operation was distinct from the
buy-bust operation, accused-appellant can be convicted of drug pushing only if
it can be shown that he acted in conspiracy with Mapa in selling
marijuana. A careful examination of the
records shows that, in spite of the presumption that official duty has been
regularly performed, there is no evidence to link accused-appellant to Eduardo
Mapa.

In
People v. Enrile^[5] a case with
similar facts, as the present case, this Court through Mr. Justice Isagani A.
Cruz, acquitted Antonio Enrile, who like accused-appellant in this case, was
allegedly pointed to as the
source of marijuana. In Enrile, this Court held that the warrantless arrest of Enrile was not
justified under Rule 113, Section 5 of the Rules of Court.

In the present case, even if it is assumed arguendo that the
arrest of accused-appellant was valid and that the marked money bill allegedly found in his
possession is admissible, there is still nothing to prove that he is a drug
pusher since Eduardo Mapa was not presented to testify to the alleged
transaction between him and accused-appellant. As in Enrile, the discovery of marked money on
accused-appellant does not mean that he was caught in flagrante delicto of
selling marijuana. As correctly pointed
out by the Solicitor General, “There is no such crime as illegal
possession of marked money”. Unless the prosecution is able to prove the connection between the
possessor of the marked money and the sale of the prohibited drug, the
presumption of innocence of the possessor of the marked money should be upheld.

We
do not discount the possibility that accused-appellant could have indeed
delivered marijuana to Eduardo Mapa but in this case where the prosecution’s
evidence failed to pass the test of moral certainty required for conviction,
this Court is compelled by law and the Constitution to uphold the presumption
of innocence in favor of accused-appellant.

WHEREFORE, the judgment appealed from is hereby REVERSED. Accused-appellant is ACQUITTED based on reasonable doubt and is ORDERED to
be immediately RELEASED unless he is being detained for some other lawful cause.

SO ORDERED.

Davide, Jr., Bellosillo, Quiason,
and Kapunan, JJ., concur.

^[1]
Rollo, p. 7.

* Penned by Judge Jose G.
Abdullah.

^[2] Rollo, p. 23.

^[3]
Rollo, pp. 15-17.

^[4]
Rollo, p. 35.

^[5]
G.R. No. 74189, 26 May 1993, 222 SCRA 586.