G.R. No. 101006 September 3, 1993
People of the Philippines, plaintiff-appellee, vs. Hamid Ambih y Kadil, accused-appellant.

FACTS

On April 17, 1989, Sgt. Amos Foncardas of the NARCOM in Zamboanga City received a confidential report that a certain “Kadil” was engaged in selling marijuana in Sutterville. A buy-bust operation was organized with Sgt. Bonifacio Morados as the poseur-buyer, using marked money. The team proceeded to Sutterville. Sgt. Morados approached the accused, Hamid Ambih, and asked, “mayroon ba tayo diyan?” Ambih replied, “mayroon ako ditong marijuana sa halagang P50.00.” Morados said he would buy it. Ambih then handed over four newspaper-wrapped packets of dried marijuana leaves. After the exchange of the packets for the marked money, Morados arrested Ambih. The seized items were examined by Forensic Chemist Athena Eliza Anderson, who confirmed they were marijuana. The Regional Trial Court convicted Ambih of violating the Dangerous Drugs Act and sentenced him to life imprisonment and a fine.
The defense presented a different account. Ambih, a carpenter, testified that he was waiting with his friend Alberto Pantoha for a delivery truck carrying construction materials for PC Captain Kanga’s house when six NARCOM agents arrested him at gunpoint without cause. Pantoha corroborated that people scampered away when armed men appeared, leaving behind marijuana on the ground near where Ambih stood, and that Ambih was arrested while nothing was found on his person. Hadja Napisa Kanga confirmed she hired Ambih for construction work and that he was instructed to wait for the truck.

ISSUE

Whether the prosecution proved beyond reasonable doubt that Hamid Ambih y Kadil was guilty of selling marijuana.

RULING

The Supreme Court REVERSED and SET ASIDE the judgment of conviction and ACQUITTED accused Hamid Ambih y Kadil on the ground of reasonable doubt. The Court found the prosecution evidence grossly insufficient. It highlighted material inconsistencies in the prosecution’s narrative: a discrepancy between whether Sgt. Foncardas received three or five marked ten-peso bills from M/Sgt. Mihasun, and a contradiction between the trial court’s finding that the informant reported on “Ambih” and Sgt. Foncardas’s testimony that the report was about “Kadil.” The Court also found it strangely coincidental and pre-determined that the marked money prepared (P50.00) was the exact amount the accused allegedly demanded for the marijuana. While acknowledging that a buy-bust operation is a recognized method of entrapment, the Court cautioned that it is susceptible to abuse, extortion, and the planting of evidence. The prosecution must rely on its own strong proof, and here, the evidence did not meet the standard of proof beyond reasonable doubt required for conviction. The constitutional presumption of innocence must prevail.