G.R. No. 138501 ; July 20, 2001
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, vs. ERNESTO LAXA Y MANLICLIC, @ JANGGO and MARLINDA LAXA Y AQUINO, accused. ERNESTO LAXA Y MANLICLIC @ JANGGO, accused-appellant.

FACTS

Accused-appellant Ernesto Laxa was charged, along with Marlinda Laxa, with illegal possession of marijuana under R.A. No. 6425 , as amended. The information alleged that on November 30, 1998, in Angeles City, they had in their possession and control approximately 8,807.10 grams of dried marijuana fruiting tops. Upon arraignment, both pleaded not guilty. The prosecution’s version, based on the testimonies of police officers and a civilian crime watch member, Arthur Tanjuakio, was that a buy-bust operation led to the arrest of Jocelyn Aquino, who then pointed out several houses, including that of the accused-appellant. Tanjuakio claimed he saw accused-appellant walking hurriedly with two bulky plastic bags and then throw a bag over a wire fence. The police arrested him and recovered the bags, which contained marijuana. The defense presented a different account, asserting that accused-appellant was not caught in possession of any marijuana. They claimed that when accused-appellant arrived at his residence, he consented to a police search of his house, which yielded nothing. He was nonetheless taken to the police station for questioning and was later arrested after a certain Rey Malig arrived and turned over bags of marijuana allegedly found in accused-appellant’s lumberyard. The Regional Trial Court convicted Ernesto Laxa of illegal possession of 8,800 grams of marijuana, sentencing him to reclusion perpetua and a fine of P500,000.00, while acquitting Marlinda Laxa for failure of proof. Hence, this appeal.

ISSUE

1. Whether the trial court erred in believing the testimony of the prosecution witnesses, especially that of Arthur Tanjuakio, which is allegedly “seriously flawed and inconsistent.”
2. Whether accused-appellant Ernesto Laxa is guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime charged.

RULING

The Supreme Court found the appeal meritorious, reversed the trial court’s decision, and acquitted accused-appellant Ernesto Laxa. The Court held that the prosecution failed to prove his guilt beyond reasonable doubt. The credibility of the prosecution witnesses was seriously undermined by material inconsistencies in their testimonies. Specifically: (1) There were conflicting accounts on who brought the confiscated marijuana to the police headquarters, with PO2 Trivinio stating it was civilian Rey Malig, while PO2 Espadera insisted it was fellow police officers. (2) The testimonies that accused-appellant was caught throwing bags over a fence contradicted Trivinio’s claim that the marijuana was given to Malig to hide it from accused-appellant. (3) There were discrepancies regarding the number of plastic bags initially seen and recovered. (4) The prosecution failed to establish an unbroken chain of custody of the seized marijuana, as the evidence showed the items were handled by a civilian (Rey Malig) without proper documentation or safeguarding, creating doubt about their integrity and identity. Given these inconsistencies and the failure to meet the required quantum of proof, the inculpatory facts were capable of an explanation consistent with innocence. Therefore, accused-appellant must be acquitted based on the constitutional presumption of innocence.