PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE, VS. MATEO ALILIN Y BISAVILLA, RAFAEL COLINA Y TUDTUD, DANILO JUNTILLA Y DE LA CALSADA AND ROLANDO PARRILLA, ACCUSED, MATEO ALILIN …

Following classified information that drug addiction had crept
into the Sabang District in Ormoc City, preying on the youth mostly, the PC
NARCOM confidential agents launched “Operation Lechon” (for
marijuana) in early April of 1986. They
not only conducted surveillance but also circulated among the youth and
befriended them so they could identify the drug pushers who operated in that
area.

On April 27, 1986, NARCOM agents S/Sgt. Cesar Maroto, Sgt. Luis
Alfiler, Pfc. Vicente Brazil, CIC Elmer Feliciano, policewoman Linda Porcadilla
and another NARCOM confidential agent met at the NARCOM office in Ipil, Ormoc
City, to plan a “buy-bust” operation to be staged in front of the
two-storey house of Porcadilla in the heart of the Sabang District at 3:00
o’clock in the afternoon of the next day. Porcadilla, who is a resident of the place and a native of Ormoc City,
knew almost everyone in the neighborhood. According to the plan, Sgt. Cesar Maroto and Policewoman Linda
Porcadilla would stay on the second floor of the policewoman’s house, overlooking the site of the operation. Both had earlier been provided with
telescopes and hand-held radio sets. The raiding team, composed of Sgt. Luis Alfiler, Pfc. Brazil, CIC
Feliciano and another confidential agent who would pose as purchaser of
marijuana from a targeted drug pusher, was posted at the corner of Burgos
Street near Porcadilla’s house. They
were inside a white Ford Fiera and were also provided with hand-held radio
sets. The two groups were to be in
close contact through their radio sets and, as agreed, the password would be:
“Go, go go!” As soon as Sgt. Maroto would give that signal, Sgt.
Alfiler’s team in the Ford Fiera would immediately swoop down on the drug pushers. The team members prepared P70.00 of marked
money by taking down the serial numbers of two five-peso bills, one ten-peso
bill and one fifty-peso bill.

In accordance with that plan, Sgt. Maroto secreted himself in
Porcadilla’s house at 2:00 o’clock in the early morning to avoid being seen.

Before 3:00 o’clock in the afternoon of April 28, 1986, Sgt.
Alfiler and his companions posted themselves on Burgos Street aboard their
motor vehicle to await the password.

From his vantage location, Sgt. Maroto saw the NARCOM confidential agent arrive in
front of Porcadilla’s house at around 3:00 o’clock in the afternoon. The appellant, Mateo Alilin y Bisavilla, and
his companions, Rafael Colina and Danilo Juntilla, allegedly approached the
agent. Policewoman Porcadilla who was watching
beside Sgt. Maroto, recognized them and identified them by their names. The three men talked with their
“customer” who gave the marked money to Alilin. Alilin whistled psst! upon hearing which
Rolando Parilla came out of a neighbor’s house, carrying a package which he
gave to Juntilla who handed it to the confidential agent. Promptly, S/Sgt. Maroto (who had been
describing the proceedings over his hand-held radio) gave the password to
strike and arrest.

Sgt. Alfiler and his team rushed to the scene straightaway and
surrounded the appellant and his three companions. In the commotion that ensued, Parilla was able to escape but
Alilin, Juntilla, and Colina were arrested. The team recovered from Alilin’s pocket P20 consisting of one ten-peso
bill and two five-peso bills. The
marked fifty-peso bill was not recovered (pp. 14, 34-35, tsn, October 13,
1986). The package containing
twenty-eight (28) sticks of marijuana cigarettes was also confiscated (pp.
17-18, tsn, October 13, 1986), and duly receipted for by Sgt. Alfiler, who gave
the receipt to the appellant (p.
40, tsn, October 13, 1986). Nothing was
found on the persons of Rafael Colina and Danilo Juntilla (p. 41, tsn, October
13, 1986).

During the investigation that followed, the NARCOM agents learned
from the appellant and his co-accused, Juntilla and Colina, that the source of
their marijuana was a certain Boy Ramoneda. A laboratory examination conducted by the PC crime laboratory on April
28, 1986 and the Chemistry Report (No. NB 77-86) issued by forensic chemist
Liza Sabong revealed that the cigarette sticks were all positive for marijuana.

Alilin, Colina, Juntilla, and Parilla were charged in the
Regional Trial Court of Ormoc City, Branch XII, in Criminal Case No. 2862-0 for
violation of Section 4, Art. II of the Dangerous Drugs Act (Republic Act 6425,
as amended). The information reads:

“That on or about the 28th day of April, 1986, at around 3:00
o’clock in the afternoon, in Sabang District, Ormoc City, and within the
jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the above-named accused MATEO ALILIN y Bisavilla, RAFAEL COLINA y Tudtud,
DANILO JUNTILLA y de la Calsada and ROLANDO PARILLA, conspiring together,
confederating with and mutually helping and aiding one another, did then and
there willfully, unlawfully and feloniously sell twenty-eight (28) sticks of
marijuana cigarettes, thus violating Section 4 of Article II, Republic Act 6425.” (p. 4, Rollo.)

Upon arraignment, Alilin, Juntilla, and Colina all pleaded not
guilty. Parilla has remained at large.

As against the testimony of the prosecution witnesses, Sgts.
Alfiler and Maroto, Alilin told the court that P40 (not P20 as claimed by the
prosecution) in bills and some P10 in coins were taken from his
possession. This is corroborated by the
other defense witnesses, Danilo Cuizon, the accused Rafael Colina y Tudtud and
Danilo Juntilla, as well as the prosecution’s “Receipt for Property
Seized” (Exh. D-2) which states that two (2) twenty-peso bills were taken
from Alilin’s possession.

Defense witness Ramon Mabitad, barangay secretary, testified that
at around 3:00 o’clock in the afternoon of April 28, 1986, he saw Alilin
walking casually, followed by an armed person, who called Alilin’s attention
and pointed to something on the ground. Mabitad heard the man say: “Pick it up!” and when Alilin was
about to do so, the armed man boxed Alilin on the breast and brought him to
Erlinda Porcadilla’s house. The witness
testified that Alilin was alone when arrested and that he never saw either
Tudtud (Colina), or Juntilla with Alilin as he walked.

Witness Manuel Quizon testified that he and his brother,
Victorino Quizon, were arrested by NARCOM agents at about 3:00 o’clock in the
afternoon of April 28, 1986 at his mother’s house. The arresting officer left them there for a short while and later
came back with Rafael Tudtud (Colina). All of them were then brought to Linda Porcadilla’s house where they saw
Danilo Juntilla and Mateo Alilin. They
were searched and various items were
allegedly taken from their persons, but no marijuana.

These testimonies contradicted the claim of the prosecution that
a buy-bust operation was conducted. It
appears that what happened was that the NARCOM agents rounded up and/or
arrested persons in Sabang Beach, Ormoc City, whom they suspected to be users
or dealers of marijuana.

After trial, a decision was rendered on November 17, 1987,
finding Mateo Alilin guilty as charged. The court sentenced him to suffer the penalty of reclusion perpetua
and to pay a fine of P30,000, plus costs. Juntilla and Colina were acquitted.

Alilin comes before this Court on appeal, alleging that the trial
court erred:

1. in not holding that the prosecution failed to prove his guilt
beyond reasonable doubt because:

a.     
the twenty-eight sticks of marijuana cigarettes were not
formally offered in evidence;

b.     
the prosecution witnesses’ testimonies were not clear and
convincing; and

c.     
the confidential agent was not identified nor presented on the
witness stand;

2. in not holding that the marijuana sticks were not recovered from
him;

3. in holding that
the money seized from him were marked money and not his own; and

4. in holding that the
evidence of the defense, compared to that of the prosecution, is
“vacillating and flimsy” and that appellant’s denial of the
commission of the offense charged is not corroborated by the other defense
witnesses.

There is merit in the petition.

Peddlers of prohibited drugs are “agents of destruction and
deserve no less than the maximum penalty” (People vs. Bati, 189 SCRA
97). In view of the severity of
Republic Act. No. 6425, to sustain a conviction for selling prohibited drugs,
the sale must be clearly and unmistakably established.

However, the illegal sale of marijuana which merely requires proof
of the consummation of the selling transaction (People vs. Dekingco, 189 SCRA
512; People vs. Marcos, 185 SCRA
154) would be impossible to establish when the price paid (the marked money) is
not recovered from the alleged seller, the goods sold (the marijuana sticks)
are not produced before the court, and the poseur-buyer is not presented at the
trial. The absence of those elements of
the transaction leaves a hiatus in the prosecution’s evidence which is fatal to
the case (People vs. Tangliben, 184 SCRA 220). The identity of the poseur-buyer is vital when the accused, as in this
case, denies having sold marijuana to anyone (People vs. Ale, 145 SCRA
50). The failure to present the
poseur-buyer engenders a well-grounded belief that he does not exist, or, that
his evidence is being wilfully
suppressed because it will be adverse if produced (Rule 131, Sec. 5[e], Rules
of Court).

We have scrutinized the records of this case to ascertain whether
or not the quantum of proof is sufficient to convict the appellant, and the
following questions regarding the so-called “buy-bust” operation
remain unanswered.

1. Why was the marijuana
“recovered from Alilin” contrary to the declaration of the
prosecution witnesses that it was given by Rolando Parilla to Juntilla who handed
it over to the unnamed poseur-buyer?

2. If the marked bills
amounting to P70 were indeed given to Alilin, why was the fifty-peso bill not
found in his possession, despite the circumstance that he had no time to run
and hide the money when the trap was sprung?

3. Why did the
prosecution witnesses testify that P20 in marked P10 and two P5 bills were
“recovered from Alilin’s pocket” although the receipt (Exh. D-2)
showed that two P20 bills (or P40) were seized from him?

4. Why was the pack of
marijuana sticks not presented at the trial?

5. Why was the
poseur-buyer not identified nor presented as a witness?

We need not belabor the settled doctrine in criminal procedure
that the prosecution must rely on the strength of its own evidence and not on
the weakness of the defense. It must
overcome the constitutional presumption of innocence which the accused enjoys,
and must prove his guilt beyond reasonable doubt.

The prosecution’s evidence in this case leaves much to be
desired. The unexplained gaps in the
evidence make us unable to conclude that the guilt of the accused has been
proven beyond a reasonable doubt. Considering the severity of the penalty for drug-pushing, which is
imprisonment for life, the Court hesitates to inflict it upon the appellant on
the basis of the dubious evidence in this case.

WHEREFORE, the appealed decision is hereby reversed and
set aside. The appellant Mateo Alilin
is ACQUITTED of the crime charged with costs de oficio.

SO ORDERED.

Narvasa, C.J., Cruz, and
Medialdea, JJ., concur.