G.R. No. 84363 March 4, 1992
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, vs. MATEO ALILIN y BISAVILLA, RAFAEL COLINA y TUDTUD, DANILO JUNTILLA y DE LA CALSADA and ROLANDO PARILLA, accused, MATEO ALILIN y BISAVILLA, accused-appellant.

FACTS

Following information about drug addiction in Sabang District, Ormoc City, PC NARCOM agents planned a “buy-bust” operation named “Operation Lechon” for April 28, 1986. The plan involved surveillance and using a confidential agent as a poseur-buyer. Marked money totaling P70 was prepared. On the said date, from a vantage point, S/Sgt. Cesar Maroto observed the confidential agent arrive. Appellant Mateo Alilin, along with Rafael Colina and Danilo Juntilla, allegedly approached the agent. Policewoman Linda Porcadilla identified them. The agent gave marked money to Alilin. Alilin whistled, prompting Rolando Parilla to emerge from a house and hand a package to Juntilla, who then gave it to the agent. Sgt. Maroto gave the signal to arrest. The raiding team rushed in, arresting Alilin, Juntilla, and Colina (Parilla escaped). They recovered P20 (a ten-peso bill and two five-peso bills) from Alilin’s pocket, but not the marked fifty-peso bill. A package containing twenty-eight (28) sticks of marijuana cigarettes was confiscated. A laboratory examination confirmed the sticks were marijuana. Alilin, Colina, Juntilla, and Parilla were charged with violating the Dangerous Drugs Act. Upon arraignment, Alilin, Juntilla, and Colina pleaded not guilty (Parilla remained at large). The defense presented witnesses who contradicted the prosecution’s version, suggesting the accused were merely rounded up. After trial, the Regional Trial Court found Mateo Alilin guilty and sentenced him to reclusion perpetua and a fine, while acquitting Juntilla and Colina. Alilin appealed.

ISSUE

Whether the prosecution proved the guilt of appellant Mateo Alilin for the illegal sale of marijuana beyond reasonable doubt.

RULING

No. The Supreme Court reversed the trial court’s decision and acquitted appellant Mateo Alilin. The prosecution failed to prove his guilt beyond reasonable doubt due to fatal gaps in its evidence. Specifically: (1) the marijuana sticks were not formally offered in evidence; (2) the marked fifty-peso bill was not recovered from Alilin; (3) there was a discrepancy between the testimonies on the amount of money recovered (P20) and the receipt (P40); (4) the poseur-buyer (confidential agent) was neither identified nor presented as a witness, which was vital since Alilin denied the sale; and (5) the narrative of how the marijuana changed hands was unclear. The absence of the poseur-buyer, the marked money, and the corpus delicti (the marijuana) left a hiatus in the prosecution’s case. The constitutional presumption of innocence must prevail when the evidence is dubious.