People Of The Philippines v. Bisavilla

GRIÑO-AQUINO, J.:

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. On April 27, 1986, NARCOM agents S/Sqt.

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. 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 Sgt.

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. 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). That on or about the 28th day of April, Upon arraignment, Alilin, Juntilla, and Colina all pleaded not guilty.

As against the testimony of the prosecution witnesses, Sgts. 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. 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.

These testimonies contradicted the claim of the prosecution that a buy-bust operation was conducted. After trial, a decision was rendered on November 17, 1987, finding Mateo Alilin guilty as charged.reclusion perpetua and to pay a fine of P30,000, plus costs. 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 There is merit in the petition. Peddlers of prohibited drugs are "agents of destruction and deserve no less than the maximum penalty" However, the illegal sale of marijuana which merely requires proof of the consummation of the selling transaction (People vs. We have scrutinized the records of this case to ascertain whether or not the quantum of proof is sufficient to conviuct 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 mirijuana 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.

The prosecution's evidence in this case leaves much to be desired.

WHEREFORE, the appealed decision is hereby reversed and set aside.de oficio. SO ORDERED.

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