PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, PLAINTIFF- APPELLEE, VS. JOEL QUINTERO Y YBASCO, ACCUSED-APPELLANT.

JOEL QUINTERO Y YBASCO is languishing in the Maximum Security
Compound at the New Bilibid Prisons in Muntinlupa, Metro Manila, because the
prosecution witnesses, according to the court a quo, were more credible
than the accused. Since a criminal
prosecution involves not only the question of credibility but the more
important issue of whether the guilt of the accused has been established beyond
reasonable doubt, we are inevitably drawn to a verdict of acquittal.

The version of the prosecution is that on 19 March 1986 Pfc.
Emeterio Malanyaon of the Anti-Narcotics Section, Makati Police Station,
received a telephone call from an unidentified woman informer that a man
dressed in white T-shirt, khaki shorts and tennis shoes was selling shabu at P10.00 per foil along
Pateros St., Makati. To check the
veracity of the call, the woman was requested to call again in the afternoon,
which she did, and affirmed her earlier report. Thereafter, a team composed of Pfc. Henry de la Cruz, Det.
Emeterio Malanyaon, Det. Marlon Almoguerra, Det. Antonio Manalastas, and Dets.
Del Prado and Dionida (their first names not given in the record) proceeded to
Pateros St. on a buy-bust operation. The informant was not with the team. While Det. Almoguerra posed as buyer, Dets. Malanyaon and Dionida acted
as peanut and corn vendors, respectively. The rest of them posted themselves some fifteen (15) meters away from
where the accused sat in front of a sari-sari store.

The prosecution further narrates that the accused approached Det.
Almoguerra and asked, “P’re, score ka ba?” Thereafter, an exchange of
one foil of marijuana and a marked P10.00-bill ensued. The accused was then arrested and frisked as
a result of which nine (9) more foils of dried marijuana leaves and eleven (11)
sticks of marijuana cigarettes were recovered from his waistline. He was brought to the Makati Police Station
where he executed a written statement (Exh. “A”) admitting possession
of more prohibited drugs in his house at Pateros St. and requesting the
buy-bust team to accompany him there in order to get the drugs. On the basis of the confession, six (6) more
plastic bags containing dried marijuana flowering tops and another bag of
crushed dried marijuana leaves and seeds were recovered from his house.

Accordingly, the accused
was charged with illegal sale of a foil of marijuana dried leaves, in violation
of Sec. 4, Art. II, of The Dangerous
Drugs Act,^[1] and illegal possession of nine (9) rolls of dried marijuana
flowering tops, eleven (11) handrolled marijuana cigarette sticks, six (6)
plastic bags containing cut stems of dried marijuana flowering tops, and one
(1) plastic bag of crushed dried marijuana leaves and seeds wrapped in a piece
of paper, in violation of Sec. 8, Art. II, of the same Act.^[2]

Accused-appellant denied selling marijuana to Det. Almoguerra as
he knew the latter to be a policeman. He claimed that he was only buying corn for his wife when Det. Dionida,
pretending to be a corn vendor, suddenly poked a gun at him and led him to the
corner of Osmeña St. where two tricycles with five persons on board were
waiting. After being forced to board
one of the tricycles, he was brought to a warehouse near the Makati Police
Precinct where he was tortured into signing Exh. “A” wherein he
admitted possession of more prohibited drugs in his residence.

On 9 September 1987, in a joint decision, the accused was
exonerated from the charge of unlawful possession of marijuana, but declared
guilty of illegal sale of the prohibited merchandise.^[3]
Hence, his appeal concerns only his conviction for illegal sale of one (1) foil
of marijuana.

Aside from proof of the actual sale, a conviction for
drug-pushing requires that the drug subject of the sale be positively and
categorically identified in open court as the very drug sold by the accused.^[4]

In the case at bench, only three of the six-men buy-bust team,
namely, Pfc. de la Cruz, Det. Malanyaon and Det. Almoguerra, testified for the
prosecution, and none of them was able to positively identify the foil of
marijuana supposedly sold by the accused. Pfc. de la Cruz attempted to do so but failed since he was not even sure
that what was sold was really a foil of marijuana. In open court, he testified:

Q: And you are not sure
that the accused handed one stick of marijuana?

A:        It was a cigarette.

Q:       You are not sure, why
did you arrest him?

A:        We are (sic) not
sure but we are (sic) waiting for a pre-arranged signal by the poseur-buyer.^[5]

Det. Malanyaon, on the other hand, when asked to make the
identification, passed the burden to Det. Almoguerra, the poseur-buyer, in this
wise:

Q: And can you identify the marijuana allegedly sold by accused to Pat.
Almoguerra during the buy-bust operation?

A:        During the buy-bust
operation, I could no longer identify, sir.

Q:       Is it not a fact
that you were one of the members of the buy-bust operation?

A: Yes sir, but it was Almoguerra who had
in possession at that time as I am (sic) telling them to have reasonable care
with the confiscated stuff (underscoring ours).^[6]

Det. Almoguerra, the most competent person to make the proper
identification according to Pfc. Malanyaon, obviously failed likewise as he
merely relied on the letter “M” found on the foil but could not
identify, much less name, the person who actually made the mark. When
asked whether he himself marked the foil of marijuana purportedly sold to him
to distinguish it from the nine (9) other foils allegedly recovered from the
accused, and for which the latter was separately charged for illegal
possession, Det. Almoguerra categorically admitted his failure thus –

Q:       Now, did you make any
marking on that one foil of marijuana which was sold to you by the accused?

A:        I did not put any
marking but I can recognize the marking found there.

Q:       In other words,
you did not make any marking during that operation?

A:        I did not
(underscoring ours).

Considering that accused-appellant was being entrapped on a
buy-bust mission, the police operatives should have carefully and meticulously
marked the evidence so that it could be presented and properly identified in
court. The drug sold by the accused constitutes
the very corpus delicti of the offense the presentation and positive identification of which are an indispensable requirement for his
conviction. The fact that the buy-bust
team led by Pfc. de la Cruz failed in this important task cannot but
inure to the detriment of the cause for the prosecution.^[7]

The foregoing discussion would otherwise sufficiently dispose of
the instant appeal. But there are
several points which appear to have been overlooked which further render the
version of the prosecution not as credible and reliable as it was considered to
be by the court a quo.

First. The alleged buy-bust operation was conducted without prior
surveillance.^[8]
Although not always necessary, the absence of a prior surveillance nevertheless
renders quite suspect the genuineness of the alleged buy-bust mission where the
police operatives proceeded to the suspect’s reported area of operation within
hours from being tipped off, unaccompanied by the informant, and relying solely
on the description of their quarry. In
this case, the buy-bust team by Pfc. de la Cruz proceeded to Pateros St. with
only the description that the suspect was someone “wearing white t-shirt,
khaki pants and tennis shoes”^[9] to
guide them in the arrest of the accused. Such description was so general and vague that it could very well have
applied to a number of “John Does” lurking in the area. Besides, we find it quite incredible that
accused-appellant should single out Det. Almoguerra, the poseur-buyer, as his
prospective buyer of all the people milling in the busy street of Pateros.

Second. Pfc. Pablo R. Singayon, the
police investigator assigned to the case, testified that Det. Malanyaon marked
a P10.00-bill with the letters “A. N. U.” (acronym for Anti-Narcotics
Unit) the day before the alleged buy-bust operation on 19 March 1986 following
the standard operating procedure of preparing for a buy-bust the day before it
was to be conducted.^[10]
However, Det. Malanyaon claimed to have been informed about the illegal
activities of accused-appellant in the morning of 19 March 1986 only. If this were so, then how was it that he was
able to prepare the marked money the day before as testified by Pfc. Singayon?

Third. Dets. Almoguerra and Malanyaon
both claimed that they immediately saw accused-appellant seated on a bench in
front of a sari-sari store upon arriving at Pateros Street.^[11]
However, Pfc. Henry de la Cruz, likewise a member of the buy-bust team,
testified that they had to wait for forty-five minutes before their target
showed up.^[12]

Fourth. Accused-appellant denied selling
marijuana to Det. Almoguerra as he knew the latter to be a member of the Makati
Police Force. This claim was not
refuted but was even admitted by the prosecution.^[13]
Hence, it becomes quite easy to sustain accused-appellant for we cannot believe
that the latter would risk going to jail for life for the measly sum of P10.00
which was what the transaction with Det. Almoguerra would have brought
him. In fact, we have already said that
in the very nature of buy-bust operations, the designated poseur-buyer should
be a perfect stranger to the suspected drug-pusher, for normally a suspect
would not transact business with known police operatives^[14]
in view of the obvious risk involved. Our pronouncement to the effect that knowledge by the accused that the
poseur-buyer is a policeman is not a sound argument enough to support the
theory that the accused could not have sold drugs to the police cannot be
applied to the instant case. In the
cases where we have so ruled, it was established that the policeman had already bought shabu from the
accused on two previous occasions^[15] and that the claim that the accused knew the
poseur-buyer to be a policeman was a mere allegation which was not proved.^[16] To repeat, that herein appellant knew Det.
Almoguerra to be a policeman was even admitted by the prosecution.^[17]

As is true in all criminal cases, unraveling the truth is quite
difficult. More often than not, the
resolution of a case is reduced to the tedious exercise of figuring out who of
the parties is narrating the true version of the antecedents. Thus, the reason for the various rules of
evidence formulated to guide the bench in this quest. However, foremost and overriding such rules is the principle that
innocence, not guilt, is the presumption. Courts do not exist to declare guilty and, thus convict, every and all
persons brought and charged before them. For this reason, any circumstance indicating possible innocence on the
part of the accused is to be carefully weighed and considered. This is what we are doing in the instant
case. In pronouncing an acquittal, we
are moved by the circumstances already mentioned which, though not enough to
convince us of accused-appellant’s innocence, nonetheless effectively preclude
us from making a pronouncement that his guilt has been established beyond all
reasonable doubt which is, as it ought to be, to justify his conviction.

WHEREFORE, the judgment appealed from is REVERSED and accused-appellant
JOEL QUINTERO Y YBASCO is ACQUITTED on
reasonable doubt of illegal sale of marijuana under Sec. 4, Art. II, of
“The Dangerous Drugs Act.”

SO ORDERED.

Padilla, (Chairman), Davide, Jr., Quiason, and Kapunan, JJ., concur.

^[1]
Crim. Case No. 22944.

^[2] Crim. Case No. 22945.

^[3]
Penned by Judge Buenaventura J. Guerrero, Regional Trial Court of Makati, Br.
133, Original Records, pp. 242-250; Rollo, pp. 23-31.

^[4]
People v. Martinez, G. R. Nos. 105376-77, 5 August 1994; People v.
Mendiola, G. R. No. 110778, 4 August 1994; People v. Labarias, G. R.
No. 87165, 25 January 1993, 217 SCRA 483, 488; People v. Pacleb, G. R.
No. 90602, 18 January 1993, 217 SCRA 92, 98; People v. Mariano, G. R.
No. 86656, 31 October 1990, 191 SCRA 136, 148; People v. Macuto, G. R.
No. 80112, 25 August 1989, 176 SCRA 762, 767.

^[5] TSN, 22 September
1986, p. 9; Original Records, p. 151.

^[6]
Id., p. 8; Id., p. 150.

^[7]
People v. Mendiola, G. R. No. 110778, 4 August 1994 citing People v.
Macato, 176 SCRA 762 [1989], People v. Vocente, 188 SCRA 100 [1990],
People v. Mariano 191 SCRA 136 [1990]; People v. Rodrigueza, G.
R. No. 95902, 4 February 1992, 205 SCRA 791, 799-­800.

^[8]
TSN, 26 November 1986, p. 14; Original
Records, p. 167.

^[9]
TSN, 10 September 1986, p. 10; Id., p.
137.

^[10]
TSN, 26 November 1986, pp. 3-4; Id.,
pp. 156-157.

^[11]
TSN, 10 September 1986, p. 4; Id., p.
131.

^[12]
TSN, 25 August 1986, p. 6; Id., p.
123.

^[13]
TSN, 22 September 1986, p. 10; Id., p.
152.

^[14]
People v. Tuboro, G. R. No. 97306, 3 August 1992, 212 SCRA 33,
37.

^[15]
People v. Salamat, G. R. No. 103295, 20 August 1993, 225 SCRA
499, 507.

^[16]
People v. Manzano, G. R. No. 103393, 24 August 1993, 225 SCRA
590, 593.

^[17]
TSN, 22 September 1986, p. 10; Original
Records, p. 152.