GR 91160; (August, 1992) (Digest)
G.R. No. 91160 August 4, 1992
THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, vs. FELIX FULGARILLAS y DURAN @ “KOLOT”, accused-appellant.
FACTS
Accused-appellant Felix Fulgarillas was charged with violating Section 4, Article II of Republic Act No. 6425 (Dangerous Drugs Act) for allegedly selling six hand-rolled marijuana cigarettes to a NARCOM confidential informant for ten pesos in marked bills on August 21, 1987, in Tagbilaran City. The prosecution’s case, based on the testimonies of NARCOM operatives Sgts. Renato Remetiera, Alejandro Biñan, and Pat. Luisito Redulla, was that a buy-bust operation was conducted after surveillance. The poseur-buyer approached Fulgarillas, who left and returned with the marijuana, handed it over, and was then arrested. The marijuana tested positive. The defense presented a different version: Fulgarillas was at a friend’s drinking session, was sent to buy food from a carinderia, and upon leaving was suddenly accosted, mauled, and arrested by NARCOM agents who planted the marijuana and marked money on him. He was tortured at the police station to admit the sale. The trial court convicted Fulgarillas and sentenced him to life imprisonment and a fine.
ISSUE
Whether the guilt of the accused-appellant for the illegal sale of marijuana was proven beyond reasonable doubt.
RULING
No. The Supreme Court ACQUITTED accused-appellant Felix Fulgarillas. The prosecution’s evidence was insufficient to prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt. The Court found fatal flaws: the prosecution failed to present the poseur-buyer as a witness, making the testimonies of the other operatives hearsay and leaving no direct evidence of the sale. The marked money was not properly blottered, casting doubt on its regularity. The prosecution witnesses gave inconsistent testimonies regarding their positions during the operation and whether an investigation was conducted. Sgt. Remetiera’s testimony implied the marijuana was taken from the accused’s body, contradicting the claim it was handed by the poseur-buyer. The defense testimony, corroborated by witnesses, that Fulgarillas was mauled and the evidence was planted, created reasonable doubt. The prosecution must rely on the strength of its own evidence, which was weak and unreliable. Given the severe penalties for drug offenses and the possibility of evidence planting, the Court resolved doubts in favor of the accused.