GR 77777; (February, 1990) (Digest)
G.R. No. 77777 February 5, 1990
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, vs. DOMINGO BAGANO Y SALI-EN, accused-appellant.
FACTS
The prosecution’s case stemmed from a buy-bust operation on August 1, 1985, in Baguio City. Acting on information from civilian informer Clayton Emateo, NBI agents arranged for U.S. Air Force Special Agent Steven Bostick to pose as a buyer. Emateo introduced Bostick to appellant Domingo Bagano. After negotiations where Emateo acted as interpreter, Bagano allegedly agreed to sell ten kilos of marijuana at P800 per kilo. The group proceeded to Bagano’s house in Irisan, where Bagano retrieved a large white nylon sack, placed it in Bostick’s car trunk, and was shown to contain marijuana. Bostick signaled the NBI team, which then arrested Bagano and Emateo. No payment was actually made to Bagano during the operation.
Bagano presented a different version. He testified that he went to Emateo’s house to collect a P4,000 debt. Emateo told him to wait for a visitor who would provide the payment. When Bostick arrived, Emateo instructed Bagano to retrieve a bag from Irisan, which Bagano did, believing it was a gift for the American. He denied any knowledge of the bag’s contents or any drug sale agreement.
ISSUE
Whether the prosecution proved beyond reasonable doubt that appellant Domingo Bagano was guilty of attempting to sell marijuana in violation of Republic Act No. 6425, as amended.
RULING
The Supreme Court REVERSED the conviction and ACQUITTED appellant on the ground of reasonable doubt. The Court found the prosecution’s evidence insufficient to establish guilt. Critical to this conclusion was the failure to present the civilian informer, Clayton Emateo, who acted as the sole interpreter during the alleged negotiations between Bostick and Bagano. Without Emateo’s testimony, Bostick’s account of the conversation, which was central to proving the agreement to sell, was inadmissible hearsay. The Court emphasized that Bostick could not testify to the contents of a conversation he did not understand, which was conducted in a language foreign to him.
Furthermore, the Court found the evidence of ownership and criminal intent lacking. The act of retrieving and delivering the sack, by itself, did not prove Bagano owned its contents or intended to sell illegal drugs. His signatures on the seized items, obtained without counsel during custodial investigation, were inadmissible and could not be construed as an admission of ownership. The fact that no money changed hands during the meticulously planned operation also cast doubt on the existence of a sale. The prosecution failed to discharge its burden of proving guilt based on the strength of its own evidence, necessitating acquittal.