PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE, VS. REBECCA VENTURA Y AYROSO, ACCUSED-APPELLANT.

REBECCA VENTURA, a destitute housewife vending tocino and
doing laundry on the side to support ten (10) children, was charged in the
Regional Trial Court of Kalookan City for drug pushing penalized under Sec. 4,
Art. II, R.A. 6425, as amended, otherwise known as “The Dangerous Drugs
Act of 1972”. The Information
specifically alleges –

“That on or about the 21st day of April 1988 in Kalookan City
x x x the above-named accused, without being authorized by law, did then and
there wilfully, unlawfully and feloniously sell and deliver to Pat. Reynaldo
Lechido, poseur-buyer, for P150.00 two (2) plastic bags of marijuana flowering
tops knowing the same to be prohibited drug x x x x”

After trial, the court a quo rendered a decision^[1]
finding accused Rebecca Ventura guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime
charged and sentenced her to suffer the penalty of reclusion perpetua^[2]
and pay a fine of P20,000.00, plus the costs.

Accused appeals. Her
thrust is that the evidence for the prosecution is incredible and inconsistent
with human experience, hence, her guilt has not been proved beyond reasonable
doubt. She claims that she was merely a
victim of a frame-up to make her shell out grease money for her release.

The People’s evidence as culled from the testimonies of Pat.
Reynaldo Lechido, Pfc. Abner Castro and NBI Chemist George de Lara tends to
establish that at about 1:00 o’clock in the afternoon of 21 April 1988 the
Narcotics Section of the Kalookan City Police received a report from an
informant that a woman named Rebecca was peddling marijuana at Tirad Pass St.,
Morning Breeze Subdivision, Kalookan City. Acting on such report, a police team was formed under Pfc. Abner Castro
for a buy–bust operation with Pat. Reynaldo Lechido, who acted as poseur-buyer,
Pat. Eduardo Adawag, Pat. Romeo Espiritu, Pat. Jose Marte and Pat. Angel
Lumabas as members.^[3]

Half an hour later, the police team accompanied by the informant
went to the designated spot at Tirad Pass St., Morning Breeze Subdivision. They saw Rebecca. As she, Pat. Lechido and the informant huddled, the other members
of the team stood by some twenty (20) meters away. When the three (3) agreed that the merchandise would be delivered
near the Bonifacio Monument, corner EDSA, Pat. Lechido handed the marked money
to the accused who then left to get the stuff from her source. Pat. Lechido then reported to his comrades
that Rebecca would be returning in a few minutes with the prohibited drug.^[4]

After some thirty (30) minutes, Rebecca arrived at their
rendezvous. She handed him the stuff,
which she took from her pocket. Then
Pat. Lechido scratched his head, a pre-arranged signal that the transaction was
already consummated. At this moment,
Pfc. Castro appeared and Pat. Lechido showed him the two (2) plastic bags said
to contain marijuana, each being about 7 to 8 inches long and could contain a
kilo of marijuana per bag.^[5]
Rebecca was immediately placed under arrest and brought to the Police Headquarters
for questioning. No marked money was
found in her possession. The plastic
bags were turned over to Cpl. Wilfredo L. Tamondong who then wrote his initials
“WLT” on the plastic bags for identification purposes.^[6]

Forensic Chemist George de Lara of the NBI affirmed on the
witness stand his report^[7] that
the contents of the plastic bags were marijuana flowering tops.^[8]

Accused-appellant pleads innocence. She claims that at around 1:30 p.m. of 21 April 1988 she was in
her house at 54 Tirad Pass St., Morning Breeze Subdivision, washing clothes and
attending to her children. Then she
prepared to go to Novaliches, Quezon City, to collect her receivables for the tocino
she earlier sold on credit. She took a
tricycle to Monumento where she was to take a bus to Novaliches. However, while waiting for a ride in front
of Mercury Drug Store in Monumento, a black bag 1-1/2 feet long fell near
her. She did not notice where it came
from. She was surprised. Then two (2) persons, who turned out to be
policemen, picked up the bag. They
forced her to admit ownership of it but she refused. She vehemently denied she was the owner of the bag.

She was brought to the police station at Sangandaan, Kalookan
City, where she was booked and interrogated. There she was told to produce P10,000.00 otherwise she would be charged
for drug pushing. She cried and told
her arresting officers she did not have that much money. She was then taken to the inquest fiscal who
did not ask her any question but merely signed the papers presented by the
policemen. She was not able to file
charges against the policemen because she was already detained and had no means
to hire a lawyer.^[9]

After a careful assessment of the evidence, We find the case of
the prosecution too frail to sustain a conviction. While this does not imply that the evidence far the defense is
strong, yet, settled is the rule that to sustain a conviction, the prosecution
must rely on the strength of its own evidence and not on the weakness of the
defense.^[10]
Indeed, the evidence for the prosecution must be overwhelming to overcome the
constitutional presumption of innocence enjoyed by the accused, such that his
guilt must be proved beyond reasonable doubt.^[11]

In the case before Us, there are substantial facts or
circumstances which engender serious doubt as to the guilt of the accused.

We find it unlikely, indeed, that in effecting the alleged
buy-bust operation, the poseur-buyer would hand the marked money to the drug
pusher even without the prohibited drug in sight, and no explanation is offered
why there was no simultaneous delivery of the money and the stuff being bought,
under the so-called “kaliwaan” system. Here, the poseur-buyer allegedly gave the marked money to the
accused at Tirad Pass St., who then left with the undertaking to bring the
stuff to the designated place in thirty (30) minutes. This is contrary to human experience and the standard practice in
buy-bust operations. Being unknown to
each other, the poseur-buyer would not entrust P150.00 to a drug trafficker, an
underworld character, who could have simply disappeared with the money in the
bustling fringes of the Bonifacio Monument Center. It strains credulity that the government agents would be too
trusting by giving P150.00 to a pusher, a total stranger, and expect her to
resurface in thirty (30) minutes with the prohibited drug, without even
pinpointing the source of the marijuana. Trafficking in dangerous drugs is always done in haste, for time is of
the essence, to avoid detection by the authorities. And why did they not endeavor to locate that source and include
the same in their buy-bust operation?

Strangely, as already adverted to, no marked money was found in
the possession of the accused when she was arrested; not even her share in the
clandestine transaction. While it is
true that the absence of marked money does not create a hiatus in the
prosecution evidence,^[12]
under the peculiar circumstances obtaining in this case, We find such fact
sufficient to taint the veracity of the government’s version. It is almost unthinkable that the accused,
if she was really a pusher, would be left with no money in her possession
immediately after the consummation of the transaction. After all, a drug pusher is not in the trade
for nothing. That no money was
recovered from her only lends credence to her claim that she was on her way to
Novaliches to collect for the tocino she earlier sold on credit.

We likewise find it difficult to accept that a pusher would
deliver marijuana in two (2) plastic bags, said to contain approximately one
(1) kilo each, for a measly sum of P150.00. Moreover, these plastic bags are different from the small tea bags used
by “professional” pushers in wrapping marijuana. With their size and weight, these bags cannot easily be
concealed; consequently, the difficulty of hiding the prohibited drugs from
public view makes it highly incredible that such illicit trade could have been
carried out in a busy section of the city.

WHEREFORE, her guilt not having been proved beyond
reasonable doubt, the judgment convicting accused REBECCA VENTURA is REVERSED
and SET ASIDE. She is ACQUITTED
of the crime charged, and her immediate release from custody is ordered unless
she is held for another cause.

Costs de oficio.

SO ORDERED.

Cruz, (Chairman), Padilla, and
Griño-Aquino, JJ., concur.

^[1]
Penned by Judge Rene Victoriano, RTC-Kalookan City, Br. 124.

^[2]
The penalty under Sec. 4, Art. II, R.A. 6425, as amended, is life imprisonment
to death and a fine ranging from P20,000.00 to P30,000.00. However, the death penalty having been
reduced to life imprisonment under the 1987 Constitution, the correct penalty
to be imposed should be “life imprisonment”, not reclusion
perpetua which carries accessory penalties. See People v. Fernandez, G.R. No. 86495, 13 May 1992.

^[3]
Tsn, 2 June 1988, pp. 3-5; Tsn, 3 June 1988, pp. 3-5.

^[4]
Tsn, 3 June 1988, pp. 5-7.

^[5]
Id., p. 10.

^[6]
Id., pp. 8-12.

^[7]
Exh. “C”.

^[8]
Exhs. “D” and “E”.

^[9]
Tsn, 13 April 1989, pp. 3-23.

^[10]
People v. Magallanes, G.R. No. 63936, 7 January 1987, 147 SCRA 92, 94;
People v. Olaes, G.R. No. 76547, 30 July 1990, 188 SCRA 91.

^[11]
People v. CFI-Rizal (Quezon City), Br. IV, G.R. No. 57280, 9 May 1988;
161 SCRA 249.

^[12]
People v. De la Cruz, G.R. No. 87607, 31 October 1990; 191 SCRA 160,
161.