GR 109633; (July, 1994) (Digest)
G.R. No. 109633 July 20, 1994
THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, vs. NORMANDO DEL ROSARIO Y LOPEZ, accused-appellant.
FACTS
Normando del Rosario was charged with Illegal Possession of Firearm and Ammunition (Criminal Case No. 236-91) and Illegal Sale of Regulated Drugs (Criminal Case No. 237-91). The charges stemmed from events on September 4, 1991, in Cavite City. A search warrant was issued for shabu and paraphernalia at his residence. A buy-bust operation was planned where PO1 Venerando Luna was to act as a poseur-buyer. After Luna allegedly bought shabu, a raiding team implemented the search warrant at del Rosario’s house. During the search, police claimed to have found a homemade .22 caliber revolver with ammunition and seized shabu and paraphernalia. The trial court convicted del Rosario on both charges.
ISSUE
The primary issue is whether the prosecution proved the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt for illegal sale of drugs and illegal possession of firearm and ammunition.
RULING
The Supreme Court REVERSED the trial court’s decision and ACQUITTED accused-appellant Normando del Rosario y Lopez.
1. On the Illegal Sale Charge: The prosecution failed to prove the illegal sale of shabu. The alleged poseur-buyer, PO1 Venerando Luna, was not presented as a witness. This omission was fatal, as it left no direct evidence to establish that a sale transpired. The testimonies of other police officers regarding the sale were hearsay, as they were not present during the alleged transaction. The Court found the prosecution’s version of events—where the police did not arrest the accused immediately after the alleged sale but instead proceeded to implement a search warrant later—to be contrary to standard buy-bust procedure and human experience, creating serious doubt.
2. On the Illegal Possession of Firearm and Ammunition Charge: The firearm and ammunition were inadmissible as evidence. The search warrant authorized the seizure only of shabu and its paraphernalia, not a firearm. The seizure of the firearm was beyond the scope of the warrant and therefore illegal. Under the Constitution, evidence obtained from an illegal search is inadmissible. With the firearm excluded, there was no evidence to support the charge of illegal possession.
The Court ordered the accused’s immediate release and the confiscation of the shabu, marked money, firearm, and ammunition in favor of the government.