FIRST DIVISION
PEOPLE OF THE
PHILIPPINES,
Appellee,
G.R.
No.
135323
June 25, 2003
-versus-
EDELMA LAGATA Y
MANFOSTE,
Appellant.
D E C I S I
O N
YNARES-SANTIAGO,
J.:chanroblesvirtuallawlibrary
Edelma Lagata was accused
of having in her possession, custody and control Methamphetamine
Hydrochloride
or "shabu" without authority of law. The information reads:
That on or
about the 10th day of December, 1996, in Pasay, Metro Manila,
Philippines
and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the above-named
accused,
Edelma Lagata y Manfoste a.k.a. Baby, without authority of law, did
then
and there willfully, unlawfully and feloniously have in her possession,
custody and control 257.422 grams of Methamphetamine Hydrochloride
(SHABU),
a regulated drug, without a corresponding license.
CONTRARY TO LAW.[1]
The case was docketed
as
Criminal Case No. 96-9539 of the RTC of Pasay City, Branch 110.
Upon arraignment on
January 21, 1997, accused assisted by her counsel de parte pleaded not
guilty to the crime charged against her.cralaw:red
After trial, the court
rendered its judgment, the dispositive portion of which reads:
WHEREFORE,
judgment is hereby rendered finding the accused EDELMA LAGATA y
MANFOSTE,
GUILTY beyond reasonable doubt of the offense of Violation of Section
16
Article III in relation to Section 20 Republic Act 6425, as amended by
Republic Act 7659, and hereby imposes on her the penalty of RECLUSION
PERPETUA
and condemns said accused to pay a fine of Five Hundred Thousand Pesos
(P500,000.00) without subsidiary imprisonment in case of insolvency.
The 257.422 grams
of
Methamphetamine Hydrochloride or "shabu" (Exhibit "B", "B-1-a" "B-1-b")
are hereby declared confiscated in favor of the government but in view
of the fact that said specimen is in the possession of Forensic
Chemist,
Mrs. Lilia B. Ariola of the Forensic Chemistry Division of the National
Bureau of Investigation, said Forensic Chemist or her duly authorized
representative
hereby ordered to cause the delivery and transportation thereof to the
Dangerous Drugs Board for disposition in accordance with law.
The accused shall
be
credited in full for the period of her detention at the Pasay City Jail
during the pendency of this case provided that she agreed in writing to
abide by and comply strictly with the rules and regulations of the said
City Jail.
SO ORDERED.[2]
On December 10, 1996,
while
appellant was tending her mother’s store at 1742 Tramo St., Pasay City,
a short and dark complexioned man wearing jeans and a pair of slippers
approached and asked her to deliver a package wrapped in newspaper and
placed in plastic bag to a certain Chinggay, a boarder in her mother’s
house. Fernando Hernandez, one of the defense witnesses, was at
the
store buying softdrinks. Appellant did not examine the contents
of
the package and the man hurriedly left the store. She entered the
living room of the house to give the package to Chinggay, who was in
one
of the rooms of the house, when she saw two men sitting on the
sofa.
The men approached her and introduced themselves as agents of the
National
Bureau of Investigation. The men took the package from her and
opened
it. To her surprise, it contained shabu. The NBI agents
immediately
arrested her.
Appellant does not deny
the fact that at the time of her arrest she was in possession of the
package
which turned out to contain shabu. However, she denied knowledge
of the contents of the package handed to her by the unidentified man.[3]
The prosecution has
a different version of the events.cralaw:red
On November 27, 1996,
Agents Dave Segunial and Rommel Vallejo of the Special Task Force
Office
of the National Bureau of Investigation received a tip from its
informant
that a certain "Baby" and "Chinggay", both residents of 1742 Tramo St.,
Pasay City, were engaged in drug trafficking. They were
immediately
instructed by their Executive Officer, Atty. Edmund Arugay, to conduct
surveillance and validation of the information and, if found positive,
to plan for a test buy or apply for a search warrant. Thus, they
took pictures of the subject house and, on December 1, 1996, a test buy
was conducted where their confidential informant, accompanied by Agent
Vallejo, posed as buyer of shabu and Agent Segunial acted as their
driver.
They were able to buy P1,000.00 worth of substance weighing .1045 grams
which, when submitted for laboratory examination, proved positive for
shabu.
The following day, they obtained a search warrant against "Baby" and
"Chinggay"
from the Regional Trial Court of Manila.cralaw:red
The team tried to serve
the search warrant twice but their operations were aborted. On
their
first attempt, they were unable to gain entrance to the premises since
the house had two steel gates and they could not force themselves into
the premises, otherwise, the subjects will be able to dispose of the
shabu
and elude arrest. On the second occasion, they encountered
watchers
outside the house who, based on their experience, acted as look-out who
would give signals to the subjects if they see suspicious looking
people.cralaw:red
On December 10, 1996,
at around 9:00 a.m., the team proceeded to the area with another
confidential
informant known to the subjects. When they arrived at the house,
the informant talked to the person inside the store and they were
allowed
to enter the house. The first steel gate was opened by a man from
across the street, while the second gate was opened by a lady who came
from inside the house. They were led inside by another lady and
were
told to wait in the living room. A few minutes later, appellant
entered
the living room from the store, carrying a plastic bag. The
informant
gestured that she was Baby, one of the subjects. Agent Vallejo
stood
up and showed his badge. At the same time, Agent Segunial pressed
the beeper to signal the rest of the team. Appellant cried,
"huwag
po, huwag po!" They confiscated the plastic bag with pink
stripes,
which contained two pouches of white crystalline substance, later found
to be Methamphetamine Hydrochloride or shabu.cralaw:red
After appellant was
arrested, Agent Vallejo heard running footsteps upstairs, so he
immediately
went up the stairs. He forcibly opened the door and saw a woman
fleeing
through another staircase at the back of the house. He chased the
woman but failed to catch her.cralaw:red
The team searched the
house but found no other articles or paraphernalia. At around
that
time, the media men and the barangay captain arrived.[4]
The only issue to be
resolved in this appeal is whether or not appellant is guilty of the
crime
charged against her.cralaw:red
For one to be convicted
of illegal possession of prohibited or regulated drugs, the following
elements
must concur: (1) the accused is in possession of an item or object
which
is identified to be a prohibited drug; (2) such possession is not
authorized
by law; and (3) the accused freely and consciously possessed the said
drug.[5]
In the case at bar,
the presence of the first two elements of the offense is
uncontroverted.
Appellant does not deny that she had in her possession "shabu" at the
time
of her arrest. She certainly did not have the authority to
possess
the said regulated drug. What appellant contends to be wanting in
this case is the third element.cralaw:red
Appellant maintained
that the package of shabu did not belong to her; that she was merely
asked
to hand the package to a boarder in her mother’s house; and that she
was
not aware of the contents thereof when it was handed to her. Even
the prosecution failed to prove that she had knowledge of the contents
of the package. Thus, it cannot be said that she was caught in
flagrante
delicto, since she was not consciously committing a crime when the NBI
agents accosted her.[6]
The trial court, on
the other hand, considered appellant’s defense as absurd, preposterous
and unworthy of belief.cralaw:red
We are very much aware
of the well-settled rule that factual findings of the trial court
deserve
utmost respect and will not be disturbed on appeal because the trial
court,
unlike reviewing tribunals, had a firsthand opportunity to observe the
demeanor and the conduct of the witnesses and could thus better assess
their capacity to speak the truth.[7]
Nevertheless, such rule admits of exceptions, such as when the trial
court
has overlooked certain facts or circumstances of substance and value,
which
if considered would change the result of the case. After a
painstaking
review of the records of the case, we find certain circumstances which
if weighed would tilt the scales of justice in favor of appellant and
cast
a doubt on her guilt.cralaw:red
Anent the third element,
we have held that possession of illegal drugs must be with knowledge of
the accused or that animus possidendi existed together with the
possession
or control of said articles.[8]
Knowledge refers to a mental state of awareness of a fact. Since
courts cannot penetrate the mind of an accused and thereafter state its
perceptions with certainty, resort to other evidence is necessary.
Animus
possidendi, as a state of mind, may be determined on a case-to-case
basis
by taking into consideration the prior or contemporaneous acts of the
accused,
as well as the surrounding circumstances. Its existence may and usually
must be inferred from the attendant events in each particular case.[9]
The existence of animus
possidendi is only prima facie. Thus, it is subject to contrary proof
and
may be rebutted by evidence that the accused did not in fact exercise
power
and control over the thing in question, and did not intend to do so.[10]
Under the facts and
circumstances obtaining in this case, we find that appellant’s
explanation
of how she came into possession of the package without knowing that it
contained "shabu" is credible and sufficient to rebut the prima facie
presumption
of animus possidendi. Simply put, she just happened to be at the
wrong place at the wrong time.cralaw:red
Appellant’s narration
was supported by credible corroboration from an unacquainted and
disinterested
person, Fernando Hernandez, who testified thus:
ATTY. OLIVETE
Q. Mr. witness,
on Dec. 10, 1996 will you tell the Honorable Court where were you?
WITNESS
A.
I was at the store buying softdrinks.cralaw:red
ATTY. OLIVETE
Q. Do you remember
the location of that store?
WITNESS
A. Yes sir.cralaw:red
x
x
x
x x
x
x x x
ATTY. OLIVETE
Q. Why were you
at the store at about 11:00 o’clock in the morning on that Dec. 10,
1996?
WITNESS
A.
I was buying softdrinks while waiting for the owner of the house who
went
out to buy electrical materials for the construction of a nearby
building.cralaw:red
COURT
Q. You mean to
say there was nobody manning the sari-sari store?
WITNESS
A. There was Your
Honor.cralaw:red
ATTY. OLIVETE
Q. After, oras you were buying softdrinks at the store did you recall if you
ever
noticed something?
WITNESS
A. Yes sir.cralaw:red
ATTY. OLIVETE
Q. What is that
thing you noticed while you were buying softdrinks at the store?
WITNESS
A.
I chanced upon a person who did not buy and he was carrying with him a
plastic bag sir.cralaw:red
ATTY. OLIVETE
Q. So you noticed
a man arrived with a package, will you please tell the Court what this
particular man did as he was beside in the store?
WITNESS
A. The plastic
then he was carrying, he was then holding was handed to the person who
was tending to the store.cralaw:red
COURT
Q. The man you
said who gave something to the person inside the store, do you know him?
WITNESS
A. No, Your Honor.cralaw:red
COURT
Q. Have you ever
seen that person prior to your seeing him the first time at the store?
WITNESS
A. No, Your Honor.cralaw:red
COURT
Q. The person
to whom he gave that package did it appear to you that they know each
other?
WITNESS
A. No answer.cralaw:red
COURT
Q. Do you feel
that they do not know each other, just answer yes or no, why are you so
evasive?
WITNESS
A. No, Your Honor,
they do not know each other.cralaw:red
x
x x
x
x
x
x x x
ATTY. OLIVETE
Q. What did the
man do when he went near the store?
WITNESS
A. The man who
approached the store asked a favor from the person inside the store to
give the package to a certain person whose name I could no longer
recall
sir.cralaw:red
ATTY. OLIVETE
Q. Could you recall
the gender of the person to whom that particular package to be given?
WITNESS
A.
It is a woman. The package is for a woman sir.cralaw:red
ATTY. OLIVETE
Q. And what did
the person inside the store do when after the request for the package
to
be delivered was uttered?
WITNESS
A. The person
went inside the house to get the softdrinks I was buying and to hand
the
package to that person who the package is addressed to, sir.[11]
Appellant’s lack of
knowledge of the contents of the plastic bag becomes all the more
credible
considering that when the NBI agents conducted a test buy to validate
the
tip given to them by their confidential informant, they relied entirely
on the information that a certain "Baby" and "Chinggay" were selling
"shabu".
Agent Vallejo, narrating how the test buy was conducted, testified as
follows:
COURT
Continue. Last
question- that we asked was about you decided to have a test buy.
What amount were you able to buy?
A P1,000 worth
of shabu.cralaw:red
COURT
How many grams were
you able to buy from that P1,000?
A We were able
to purchase
COURT
.Who acted as buyer?
A The informant,
your Honor.cralaw:red
COURT
You mean to say the
informant was admitted? In this sketch, there is a steel gate.
According
to you, you stayed outside the house.cralaw:red
A Yes, your Honor.cralaw:red
COURT
You were able to enter
the gate?
A Yes, they opened
the gate for us. It is bolted from inside. A lady unbolted the
gate.cralaw:red
x
x x
x
x x
x
x x
COURT
Why did you not accompany
the informant?
A
I was not allowed to enter the house.cralaw:red
COURT
Who did not allow you
to enter the house?
A The lady who
opened the gate.cralaw:red
COURT
Is that lady the same
accused?
A No, your Honor.cralaw:red
COURT
She is another person?
A Yes, your Honor.cralaw:red
COURT
Continue.cralaw:red
COURT
So you were just allowed
inside the compound but your informant was able to enter.cralaw:red
A Yes, your Honor.cralaw:red
x
x x
x
x x
x
x x
FISCAL TILLADA
Mr. Vallejo, you said
that the informant was able to buy shabu from the suspect. Did
you
come to know from whom the informant was able to buy the shabu?
A Yes, ma’am.cralaw:red
Q From whom?
A From Baby.cralaw:red
Q The informant
later on told you that she was able to buy shabu from Baby.cralaw:red
A Yes, ma’am.[12]
When cross-examined,
the witness further narrated, thus:
ATTY PAZZIUAGGAN
So you could not see
what was happening from outside to the inside?
A Yes, ma’am.cralaw:red
Q So you have
no personal knowledge of what transpired inside when your informant
went
inside the house?
A No.cralaw:red
Q And you merely
relied on the information told to you afterwards?
A Yes, ma’am.cralaw:red
Q You had no way
of checking the truth?
A We trusted our
informant.[13]
The foregoing testimony
reveals that the NBI agents had no personal knowledge that herein
appellant
was peddling shabu. In fact, they did not know the identity of
the
appellant before December 10, 1996, when they served the search warrant.[14]
Only the informant who transacted the test buy saw the alleged
pushers.
This notwithstanding, the prosecution did not present the confidential
informant as witness. We have held in many cases[15]
that the testimony of the poseur-buyer becomes material and
indispensable
when the appellant denies having committed the prohibited act. Without
the testimony of the poseur-buyer, more often than not, there is no
convincing
evidence that she did sell or possess the prohibited or regulated drug.[16]
Especially if there are no other eyewitness to the illicit transaction,
the non-presentation of the poseur buyer can be fatal to the case of
the
prosecution.[17]
In fine, what they reportedly learned from the informant was
indubitably
hearsay as the latter was never called to appear and testify at the
trial.[18]
The likelihood of having
mistaken appellant as the pusher is further bolstered by the fact that
during the search, the NBI agents employed another confidential asset
other
than the one who acted as the poseur buyer during the test buy.
Furthermore,
as testified to by Agent Vallejo, there were three ladies inside the
house,
including the appellant. The first lady was the one who opened
the
gate, the second lady was the one who brought them in the house and
went
upstairs, and the third lady was appellant, who entered the living room
through the door connecting to the store.[19]
NBI agents placed too much reliance on their informants that a certain
Baby lived in the house subject of the search warrant, making no
initiatives
to find out whether it was true, or at the very least ascertain the
identity
of the alleged "pushers".cralaw:red
True, appellant was
arrested while in possession of the regulated drug. This fact is
not denied. However, appellant’s lack of knowledge of the
contents
of the plastic bag casts a reasonable doubt as to her guilt. Her
guilt cannot be sustained where the prosecution’s evidence is anchored
on shaky foundations. The prosecution has the onus probandi of
establishing
the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt.[20]
Much as we abhor the proliferation of drug pushers, we cannot allow the
incarceration of an individual based on insufficient factual nexus of
said
person’s participation in the commission of the offense.[21]
WHEREFORE, in view of
the foregoing, the decision of the Regional Trial Court of Pasay City,
Branch 110, in Criminal Case No. 96-9539, finding appellant Edelma
Lagata
y Manfoste guilty beyond reasonable doubt of violation of Section 16,
Article
III, Republic Act No. 6425 (The Dangerous Drugs Act of 1972), as
amended,
is REVERSED and SET ASIDE. Appellant is ACQUITTED of the offense
charged on the ground of reasonable doubt. She is ordered
RELEASED
from detention unless she is being held for some other lawful cause.cralaw:red
Costs de oficio.cralaw:red
SO ORDERED.cralaw:red
Davide, Jr., C.J., (Chairman),
Vitug, Carpio, and Azcuna, JJ.,
concur.
____________________________
Endnotes:
[1]
Records, p. 1.
[2]
Rollo, p. 30, penned by Judge Porfirio G. Macaraeg.
[3]
Rollo, Brief for Accused Appellant, pp. 57-82.
[4]
See Decision, supra.
[5]
People v. Khor, 366 Phil. 762, 745 [1999], cited in People v. De
Guzman,
G.R. Nos. 117952-53, 14 February 2001, 351 SCRA 573, 587.
[6]
Rollo, Brief for Accused-Appellant, pp. 69-74.
[7]
People v. Cordero, G.R. Nos. 136894-96, 7 February 2001, 351 SCRA 383,
396.
[8]
People v. Tee, G.R. Nos. 140546-47, January 20, 2003.
[9]
People v. Burton, 335 Phil 1003, 1024-1025 [1997].
[10]
Ibid.
[11]
TSN, January 22, 1998, pp. 7-12.
[12]
TSN, June 6, 1997, pp. 9-11.
[13]
Ibid., p. 34.
[14]
See TSN, June 6, 1997, p. 40.
[15]
People v. Fider, G.R. No. 105285, 3 June 1993, 223 SCRA 117; People v.
Sillo, G.R. No. 91001, 18 September 1992, 214 SCRA 74; People v.
Tantiado,
G.R. Nos. 92795-96, 2 September 1992, 213 SCRA 365; People v.
Fulgarillas,
G.R. No. 91160, 4 August 1992, 212 SCRA 76; People v. Olaes, G.R. No.
76547,
30 July 1990, 188 SCRA 91; People v. Ramos, G.R. Nos. 85401-02, 4 June
1990, 186 SCRA 184; People v. Sahagun, G.R. No. 62024, 12 February
1990,
182 SCRA 91 [1990]; People v. Rojo, G.R. No. 82737, 5 July 1989, 175
SCRA
119; People v. Ale, 229 Phil. 81 [1986].
[16]
People v. Ramos, G.R. Nos. 85401-02, 7 June 1990.
[17]
People v. Uy, G.R. No. 129019, 16 August 2000, 338 SCRA 232, 224.
[18]
People v. Olaes, G.R. No. 76547, 30 July 1990,
[19]
Ibid., p. 20.
[20]
People v. Melosantos, 315 Phil. 622, 647 [1995].
[21]
Ibid. |