G.R. No. 107948 April 12, 1994
People of the Philippines, plaintiff-appellee, vs. Felimon Petilla II y Motabato, accused-appellant.

FACTS

An information was filed against accused-appellant Felimon Petilla II for violating the Dangerous Drugs Act by allegedly selling 49 sticks of marijuana on March 14, 1992, in Davao City. He pleaded not guilty. The prosecution’s evidence established that a buy-bust operation was formed after the arrest of Allan Amora for illegal possession of marijuana. Amora revealed he bought the marijuana from a certain “Bro” (later identified as Felimon Petilla III, the appellant’s brother). Amora acted as poseur-buyer, accompanied by police officers. At the location, Amora and SPO1 Echon gave P200 to “Bro,” who left and returned after 15 minutes with a package wrapped in newspaper. “Bro” handed the package to accused-appellant “Boy,” who then approached SPO1 Echon and Amora. SPO1 Echon immediately grabbed accused-appellant’s hand and arrested him. The package contained 47 marijuana sticks. The defense presented a different version, claiming accused-appellant was merely disposing of garbage with a companion when apprehended by police, brought to camp, and falsely implicated by Amora under coercion.

ISSUE

Whether the prosecution proved beyond reasonable doubt that accused-appellant Felimon Petilla II violated Section 4, Article II of the Dangerous Drugs Act by selling, administering, delivering, giving away, distributing, or transporting a prohibited drug.

RULING

The Supreme Court REVERSED the trial court’s decision and ACQUITTED accused-appellant Felimon Petilla II on the ground of reasonable doubt. The Court found no evidence that accused-appellant sold, delivered, or committed any act violative of the Dangerous Drugs Act. The prosecution’s own evidence, primarily from SPO1 Echon’s testimony, only showed that the package was handed by “Bro” to accused-appellant, who then approached the police officers. There was no proof that accused-appellant knew the contents of the package. The law requires that the act of “delivery” be done knowingly. The prosecution failed to establish that accused-appellant had knowledge that the package contained marijuana. There was no evidence of conspiracy between “Bro” and accused-appellant, nor any agreement between accused-appellant and the police on the drug deal. The accused-appellant’s mere act of receiving the package and approaching the officers, without proof of knowledge, was insufficient to sustain a conviction. Where inculpatory facts are susceptible of two interpretations, the interpretation favoring acquittal must prevail.