G.R. No. 79965 May 25, 1994
People of the Philippines, plaintiff-appellee, vs. Pablo Rodriguez y Cotarian, accused-appellant.

FACTS

Accused-appellant Pablo Rodriguez y Cotarian was charged with violating Section 4, Article II of the Dangerous Drugs Act ( R.A. No. 6425 as amended) for allegedly selling, delivering, and distributing marijuana sticks at the Tabaco Bus Terminal on June 21, 1984. The prosecution’s version, based on police testimony, stated that after receiving an anonymous tip, Patrolmen Rogelio Gonzales and Benito Bongalos went to the Wonder Dog Circus. They saw appellant and Gregorio Abrera acting suspiciously. Upon approach and after introducing themselves as police officers, they arrested the two. Pat. Gonzales found a small packet of marijuana (Exhibit “B”) in appellant’s right pants pocket. Abrera voluntarily handed over a plastic tea bag of marijuana (Exhibit “C”). At the police station, Abrera executed a sworn statement (Exhibit “D”) admitting possession but pointing to appellant as the source. Appellant remained silent during this. The forensic chemist confirmed the substances were marijuana. Appellant was convicted of the charged offense and sentenced to life imprisonment and a fine. Appellant denied the charges, claiming he was selling an amplifier with a companion when illegally searched, and no marijuana was found on him initially; he alleged the marijuana was later presented to him in jail and that he was mauled.

ISSUE

The main issue is whether the prosecution proved beyond reasonable doubt that appellant committed the crime of selling, delivering, and distributing marijuana as charged, or alternatively, the crime of illegal possession of marijuana.

RULING

The Supreme Court REVERSED and SET ASIDE the trial court’s decision and ACQUITTED appellant. The Court held:
1. The prosecution failed to prove the crime of sale, distribution, or delivery of marijuana. The police witnesses admitted they did not see appellant actually transacting, selling, or giving marijuana to Abrera. The best witness, Abrera, was not presented in court despite being listed as a prosecution witness, depriving appellant of his right to cross-examination. Abrera’s sworn statement (Exhibit “D”) was inadmissible for lack of confrontation.
2. Appellant could not be convicted of the lesser crime of illegal possession of marijuana. The warrantless arrest and subsequent search were invalid. The arrest was not lawful as the officers did not personally see appellant committing a crime; they acted merely on an anonymous tip and appellant’s “suspicious” behavior. Since the arrest was illegal, the search incidental thereto was also illegal. The marijuana seized (Exhibit “B”) was inadmissible as evidence, being the “fruit of the poisonous tree.” Without the illegally obtained evidence, there was no proof of possession.