PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE, VS. JAIME GARCIA Y LUCIANO AND TEODORO MASIBAC Y VIDAL, ACCUSED-APPELLANTS.

Early in the evening of September 9, 1982, a so-called
“saturation raid” was conducted in the area of Morga
Extension, Tondo, Manila, by some eight (8) police
officers from Station 2 of the Western Police District.  The raid was undertaken avowedly in response
to reports of drug pushers and users in the area.  It resulted, among others, in the
confiscation by the officers of an olive green traveling bag from the rented
room (in a house located at No. 344 Morga Extension)
in which Ursula Galang resided with her daughter,
Jocelyn and son, Loreto Masibac.  The bag was found to contain (a)
approximately one (1) gram of what appeared to be dried leaves of the flowering
tops of the marijuana plant wrapped in plastic; (b) five (5) plastic
packets or tea bags containing what also appeared to be dried marijuana leaves
and rolling paper; (c) fifty (50) plastic tea bags with rolling paper; and (d)
three (3) packages of OK brand rolling paper. 
The bag was surrendered to the police raiders by Jocelyn Masibac, on request of her mother, Ursula Galang.  The officers
were told that the bag belonged to a certain Allan Asunto.^[1]

After the policemen had taken custody of the traveling bag they
arrested Jaime Garcia and Teodorico Masibac who, according to an unnamed informant, were
carrying on the nefarious trade of drug pushing in the neighborhood.  Garcia and Masibac
were arrested at the store owned by Luzviminda and
Julia Marcos, situated opposite the house of Ursula Galang.  Both suspects were thereafter brought to
Station No. 2, together with Jocelyn and Loreto Masibac.

At the police station, Loreto Masibac
signed a written statement, later marked Exhibit I,1 saying 2 “that one day before
the opening of classes, his half-brother,** Teodorico
Masibac, in the company of ** Jaime Garcia and Allan Asunto, arrived at his house at No. 344 Morga
Extension and there began wrapping marijuana that they were selling to the
neighborhood youth; that despite the fact that he told them to stop doing that
they did not listen to him; that it was is half-brother, Teodorico,
who was supplying the capital for the purchase of marijuana; that it was Allan Asunto who was buying it; and that it was ** Jaime Garcia
who was vending the marijuana packed in plastic bags.” When the forensic
examination3
of the dried leaves surrendered to the police officers by Jocelyn Masibac, as aforestated,
disclosed them to be marijuana leaves, 4 Jaime Garcia and Teodorico Masibac were booked,
placed under arrest, 5 and separately charged in the
Manila Regional Trial Court with the offense of selling or offering for sale,
without being authorized by law to do so, “dried marijuana leaves, which
are prohibited drugs,” in violation of Section 4, Article II in relation
to Section 2 (e) (1), Article I of RA No. 6425, as amended by P.D. 1675,
otherwise known as the Dangerous Drugs Act. 6

Both accused pleaded innocent on arraignment.  The cases were then consolidated on motion of
Masibac and jointly tried.  On the strength of the foregoing facts —
testified to by Sgt. Pedro Cerillo, Jr., WPD, Station
2, and NBI Forensic Chemist Felicisima Francisco —
inclusive of the sworn statement of Loreto Masibac
above adverted to, marked Exhibit I, which Loreto acknowledged to have signed
without reading and as to which he also asserted that the answers to sixteen
(16) of the twenty-one (21) questions recorded in said statement were not his
but those of the police investigators,7 judgment was rendered by the
Regional Trial Court8 finding both accused guilty beyond
reasonable doubt of the offense ascribed to them and sentencing each of them
“to suffer the penalty of life imprisonment, both ** to be credited in
full with the time they have been detained as prisoners, to pay a fine of
P20,000.00 with subsidiary imprisonment in cases of insolvency, and to pay the
costs.”

Both Jaime Garcia and Teodorico Masibac have appealed and before this Court pray for
acquittal.  Their plea will be
granted.  They will be absolved of the
crime.

It will at once be noted that there is no evidence worthy of the
name establishing the gravamen of the crime imputed
to the appellants: selling, or offering for sale dried marijuana leaves.  The appellants were not found to be in
possession of any leaves at the time of their arrest.  As much is admitted by Sgt. Cerillo, who pertinently deposed, on cross examination,
that the appellants were frisked and found to be negative of marijuana leaves,9
although he had earlier declared, on direct examination, that some dried
marijuana leaves had been found stuck in the left pocket of Jaime Garcia’s
trousers.10
Both appellants, testifying in their behalf, denied having any marijuana at the
time they were apprehended and searched.1 Luzviminda
Marcos, one of the owners of the store in front of which the appellants had
been accosted by the police officers, saw the apprehension and search of the
suspects and categorically declared that no marijuana leaves were found on the
person of either of them.2 Furthermore, neither Sgt. Cerillo nor anyone else ever testified that either of the
appellants had actually sold marijuana, or offered it for sale, to anybody.

While there is some indication in the record that Jaime Garcia
verbally admitted to the investigating officer participation in the
drug-trafficking in the area,3 the use of such admission against
him is ruled out by the fact that it was not made in the presence of his lawyer
and by the absence of any proof of its having been preceded by the so-called
“Miranda warnings” or advisories held by this Court as indispensable
to the admission in evidence of extra-judicial confessions.  The tenuous and incompetent character of that
alleged admission is in truth underscored by the lack of any mention of it in
either the appealed decision or the People’s brief.

The Trial Court obviously relied on the written statement of
Loreto Masibac, Exhibit I, to the effect that
appellants, together with Allan Asunto, were placing
marijuana in small plastic packets for sale to the neighborhood youth, and had
paid no heed to his request that they stop doing so.  This was improper.  As above pointed out, Loreto Masibac had disowned the statement when presented to him
for identification at the trial.4 Moreover, since Loreto Masibac never gave evidence on the witness box of the facts
set out in said statement, the use of the statement as evidence against the
appellants was violative of the well known rule of res inter alios acta embodied in Section 25, Rule 130 of the Rules of
Court:  “The rights of a party
cannot be prejudiced by an act, declaration, or omission of another **.”
Neither may the statement be received, exceptionally, as an admission by a
conspirator in accordance with Section 27 of the same Rule, since not even a
pretense is made that the alleged author of the statement was ever a
co-conspirator and had made the statement in relation to the conspiracy and
during its existence.

The indications are that the traveling bag in which the marijuana
was found belonged to Allan Asunto, who apparently
has not been apprehended to this day. 
This is the Trial Court’s finding, in fact, derived from the testimony
of Sgt. Cerillo, the chief prosecution witness.  This circumstance, and the fact that no
marijuana was found on the persons of the appellants when searched shortly
after the traveling bag had been confiscated by the raiding party, and the
additional fact that the appellants’ places of residence were quite far from
the site of the raid, further erode the case against them.

The Court must therefore hold that the evidence on record fails
to prove beyond reasonable doubt the commission by the appellants of the
offense described in the informations filed against
them, or even of the crime, necessarily included in that charged, of illegal
possession of prohibited drugs.  The
constitutional presumption of innocence on their part has not been
destroyed.  They must be acquitted.

WHEREFORE, the judgment of the Trial Court rendered on April 14, 1983 in Criminal Cases Nos.
82-11188 and 82-11189 is REVERSED and SET ASIDE, and both accused-appellants
are ACQUITTED on reasonable doubt.

SO ORDERED.

Cruz, Gancayco, Griño-Aquino,
and Medialdea,
JJ., concur.

^[1] Nov. 16, 1982, TSN, pp. 1-7
(testimony of Sgt. Pedro Cerillo, WPD, Station 2)

1
(Exh. I)

2
As summarized in the Decision of the Trial Court of April 14, 1983, Rollo,
p. 46

3
Conducted by Felicisima Francisco, Forensic Chemist,
NBI (TSN. Nov. 11, 1982,
pp. 2-7)

4
Exhs. B, C, C-1 to C-4

5
Exhs. K and L, but only the accused Garcia affixed
his signature to the booking sheet and arrest report, Exh.
L-1 (Rollo, pp. 45-47)

6
Rollo, pp. 5, 6.  The action against Teodorico
Masibac was docketed as Crim.
Case No. 82-11888 of the Manila RTC, Br. XXVII, that against Jaime Garcia,
No. 82-11889 Br. XXX.

7
TSN, Nov. 17, 1982, pp.
10-11

8
Presided over by Judge (now Associate Justice of the Court of Appeals) Pedro
Ramirez

9 TSN, Nov.
16, 1982, p. 7

10 Id.,
p. 3

1 TSN, Nov.
18, 1982, pp. 8-9; TSN, Dec.
1, 1982, pp. 45-46

2 TSN, Dec.
1, 1982, pp. 16-17

3 Id.,
Nov. 16, 1982, p. 5
(testimony of Sgt. Cerillo)

4 See footnote 7, p. 2, supra