G.R. No. 101334 February 14, 1994
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, vs. EVANGELINE JUMAO-AS Y TORREOCAMPO, accused-appellant.

FACTS

On February 24, 1990, at around 6:00 a.m., Pat. Rolando Cejuela, while on duty as armorer and roving guard at Tower I of the Bagong Bahay Rehabilitation Center (BBRC), saw accused-appellant Evangeline Jumao-as approach a waste and rain water exit (a hole through a wall) located about 1-½ meters from the main gate. From his post about 15 feet away, he saw her momentarily stand by the exit and then quickly insert a wrapped article. After asking her what she placed inside, Pat. Cejuela descended, retrieved the wrapped article, suspected it contained dried marijuana leaves, and confronted Jumao-as, who denied the accusation. She was brought inside for interrogation. The article was submitted to the PC Crime Laboratory on February 26, 1990, where Forensic Analyst PC/Lt. Myrna Areola reported it tested positive for marijuana. An information for violation of Section 4, Article II of R.A. 6425, as amended, was filed.
At trial, the prosecution presented PC/Lt. Areola, who confirmed the positive test result, and Pat. Cejuela, who detailed the incident. The defense presented Jumao-as, who denied the accusation, stating she was at a store in front of BBRC waiting to visit her common-law husband, an inmate, and was surprised when Pat. Cejuela approached and brought her inside. Alma Daria corroborated, testifying she and the accused were waiting together at the store.
The Regional Trial Court convicted Jumao-as, sentencing her to life imprisonment and a fine of P30,000.00. The trial court found Pat. Cejuela’s testimony credible, noting his positive identification of the accused, the recovery of 200 grams of marijuana, and the lack of motive for the officer to falsely accuse her. The court also found inconsistencies in the defense’s testimony.

ISSUE

Whether the prosecution proved beyond reasonable doubt all the elements of the crime charged, particularly the element of “delivery” of a dangerous drug as defined under R.A. 6425, as amended.

RULING

The Supreme Court REVERSED the judgment of conviction and ACQUITTED the accused-appellant. The Court held that the prosecution failed to prove the element of “delivery.” Section 2(f), Article I of R.A. 6425, as amended, defines “deliver” as “a person’s act of knowingly passing a dangerous drug to another personally or otherwise, and by any means, with or without consideration.” The evidence only showed that the accused-appellant placed a wrapped article into a water exit. Pat. Cejuela’s conjecture that the drugs were intended for her common-law husband, a detainee, remained a mere speculation. There was no evidence that the drug was knowingly passed to another person. Citing People vs. Padua and People vs. Aranda y Doria, the Court emphasized that mere speculations cannot substitute for proof required to establish guilt beyond reasonable doubt, especially for an offense carrying a severe penalty. The evidence was insufficient to engender moral certainty of her guilt.