G.R. No. 204441. June 08, 2016.
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, PETITIONER, VS. MICHAEL KURT JOHN BULAWAN Y ANDALES, RESPONDENT.

FACTS

The accused, Michael Kurt John Bulawan, was charged with the illegal sale of dangerous drugs under Section 5, Article II of Republic Act No. 9165. The prosecution’s case rested primarily on the testimony of IO1 Rodolfo De La Cerna, Jr., a PDEA agent who acted as the poseur-buyer. He testified that on November 10, 2008, a pre-negotiated transaction for marijuana worth One Thousand Pesos (₱1,000.00) was set. The accused arrived at the location, was introduced by a confidential informant, and handed over a pack of marijuana wrapped in magazine paper. Upon verification, IO1 De La Cerna signaled his team and arrested the accused. Notably, the agent admitted he did not prepare or bring any buy-bust money, and the accused delivered the drugs without first receiving or demanding payment.
The defense presented a starkly different version. The accused testified that he was tricked by a friend, Joey Maalyao, into leaving his house under the pretense of attending a birthday party. Upon entering a vehicle, he was restrained, searched, and a marijuana item was planted on him by Joey’s companions, who were later revealed to be law enforcement agents. He claimed he was forcibly brought to their office, photographed, and falsely charged.

ISSUE

The core issue is whether the prosecution successfully proved the guilt of the accused for the illegal sale of dangerous drugs beyond reasonable doubt.

RULING

The Supreme Court acquitted the accused. The ruling hinged on the prosecution’s failure to establish the crucial element of consideration in the illegal sale of drugs. For a conviction under Section 5 of R.A. 9165, the prosecution must prove beyond reasonable doubt the identity of the buyer and seller, the object and consideration, and the delivery of the drugs and payment. The Court found a glaring absence of proof regarding the payment or even the promise of payment. The poseur-buyer explicitly testified that he brought no buy-bust money, did not give any money to the accused, and that the accused delivered the drugs without first receiving payment. This testimony effectively negated the existence of the consideration, a fundamental component of a sale. The transaction, as narrated by the prosecution witness, resembled a mere delivery or giving away of drugs, not a sale. Without proof of the sale’s consummation through the transfer of the consideration, the accused cannot be held liable for the specific crime charged. The Court emphasized that in criminal cases, the burden of proof lies with the prosecution, and any doubt must be resolved in favor of the accused. The inconsistencies and procedural lapses in the handling of the evidence further eroded the case’s integrity. Consequently, the appeal was granted, and the accused was ordered immediately released.