l\epublic of tbe Jlbiltpptnes

$>Upreme <tourt
fflanila
SECOND DIVISION

PEOPLE OF THE G.R. No. 250908

PHILIPPINES,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
Present:
- versus -
PERLAS-BERNABE, S.A.J,
Chairperson,
ARIEL QUINONES y
GESMUNDO,
LOVERIA,
LAZARO-JAVIER,
Accused-Appellant.
LOPEZ, and
ROSARIO,* JJ

Promulgated:

x-----------------------------------------------------------------

DECISION

PERLAS-BERNABE, J.:

Before the Court is an ordinary appeal I filed by accused-appellant Ariel

Quinones y Loveria (accused-appellant) assailing the Decision 2 dated
November 29, 20 18 of the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. CR-H.C. No.
10050, which affirmed the Judgment 3 dated September 4, 2017 of the
Regional Trial Court ofDaet, Camarines Norte, Branch 38 (RTC) convicting
accused-appellant of the crime of Attempted Illegal Sale of Dangerous

Designated Additional Member per Special Order No. 2797 dated November 5, 2020.
1 See Notice of Appeal dated January 16, 20 19; rollo, pp. 26-27.
2 Id. at 3-25. Penned by Associate Justice Remedios A. Salazar-Fernando with Associate Justices
Franchito N. Diamante and Ma. Luisa C. Quijano-Padilla concurring.
3 CA rollo, pp. 69-76. Penned by Presiding Judge Roberto A. Escaro.

~
 I

Decisioj 2 G.R. No. 250908

Drugs, as defined and penalized under Section 5, 4 in relation to Section 26, 5

Article II of Republic Act No. (RA) 9165, otherwise known as the
"Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of2002."

The Facts

'Jfhis case stemmed from an Information6 filed before the RTC charging
accused-appellant of Illegal Sale of Dangerous Drugs. The prosecution
allegedithat at around 3:40 in the afternoon of June 14, 2015, Jail Officer Niel
A. Romana (JO Romana) was conducting a roll call of the inmates at the
second floor of the Camarines Norte Provincial Jail when he accosted Rogelio
B. Capkras (Caparas), a minor and trustee-inmate, and asked him where he
I

was goilng. When Caparas answered that he was heading to the cell of inmate
Frederibk Cua (Cua), JO Romana bodily searched him and recovered from his
pocket a small piece of paper sealed with black electrical tape. When he
opened it, he saw a handwritten note, 7 a small plastic sachet containing O. 0944
gram of white crystalline substance, and a rolled aluminum foil. JO Romana
confisckted the items, reported the incident to his supervisor, and marked the
items iri. the presence of accused-appellant. Thereafter, the seized items were
inventoried and photographed in the presence of Philippine Drug Enforcement
Agenc~ Agent Enrico Barba, Barangay Officials Jose Juan Carranceja, Jr. and
'
Richard Rafael, and Media Representative Ricky Pera. After qualitative
examinii.tion at the crime laboratory where they were brought, the seized items
tested ~ositive for methamphetamine hydrochloride or shabu, a dangerous
drug. 8 ~rovincial Warden Reynaldo Pajarillo (Warden Pajarillo) of the
Camarihes Norte Provincial Jail corroborated JO Romana's testimony on
I

material points. 9
I

I
4
SEC. 5. Sale, Trading, Administration, Dispensation, Delivery, Distribution and Transportation of
Dang4rous Drugs and/or Controlled Precursors and Essential Chemicals. -The penalty of life
imprisonment to death and a fine ranging from Five hundred thousand pesos (PS00,000.00) to Ten
millioh pesos (PI0,000,000.00) shall be imposed upon any person, who, unless authorized by law, shall
sell, *de, administer, dispense, deliver, give away to another, distribute dispatch in transit or transport
any dangerous drug, including any aud all species of opium poppy regardless of the quantity and purity
invohjed, or shall act as a broker in any of such transactions.
5
SEC. 26. Attempt or Conspiracy. - Any attempt or conspiracy to commit the following unlawful
acts sliall be penalized by the same penalty prescribed for the commission of the same as provided under
this Abt:
(:i) Importation of any dangerous drug aud/or controlled precursor aud essential chemical;
(!{) Sale, trading, administration, dispensation, delivery, distribution aud transportation of any
dimgerous drug and/or controlled precursor and essential chemical;
(9) Maintenance of a den, dive or resort where any dangerous drug is used in any form;
(d) Manufacture of any dangerous drug and/or controlled precursor and essential chemical; aud
(9) Cultivation or culture of plants which are sources of dangerous drugs.
6
Recor&, pp. 1-2.
7 The nbte Mitten in the piece of paper reads:
"FADs
IK YAN, MOIST LANG PERO AYOS YAN. HIDAP KAYA MAGPALUSOT SI TROPA KO,
SAU TAGHIDAP SA LAY A NGAYON, GUSTO KO MAKATABANG SA MGA AKI KO MASKI
PANGALLOWANCEMANLANG.SIMPLELANGAPAG-ABOTBAYADOKAYAPAPAKUHA
'

KO NA LANG SA TAONG ALAM MONG MALAPIT SAAKIN. WALA SA LOOB NG SELDA

NASA PASILYO LANG. KILALA MO AT MANUGANG. HEHE." (Id. at 18)
See Chemistry Report No. D-111-15; id. at 17.
9
See rd/lo, pp. 5-6.

y
Decisio. 3 G.R. No. 250908

:-;aparas himself testified that the note and plastic sachet of shabu sealed
with electrical tape that JO Romana confiscated from him was given by
accusetl-appellant, who instructed him to deliver its contents to Cua. 10

In defense, accused-appellant denied the charges against him, and

instead, claimed that during that time, he was at his cell located at the first
floor of the provincial jail when he was summoned by Caparas to proceed to
I

the Office of the Provincial Warden. Thereat, he saw Caparas, JO Romana,

and three (3) other persons, and was informed of the accusations against him,
all of 'fhich he denied. He also alleged that he refused to sign the inventory
report since he was not the owner of the seized items. Finally, he averred that
he neier went out of his cell from 3:30 in the afternoon to 9:00 in the
evening. II

The RTC Ruling

~n a JudgmentI 2 dated September 4, 2017, the RTC found accused-

appellant guilty beyond reasonable doubt of Attempted Illegal Sale of
Dange~ous Drugs, and accordingly, sentenced him to suffer the penalty of
life imprisonment and to pay a fine of i'S00,000.00. It gave credence to the
testimdny of the prosecution witnesses that the shabu came from accused-
appellabt and was intended to be delivered to another inmate, Cua, on account
of acc1sed-appellant's failure to prove that the prosecution witnesses were
motivated by ill motive in implicating such a serious crime against him.
Furthe~, while accused-appellant was not caught in flagrante delivering the
plastic sachet containing shabu, it was established through testimonial
I

evidern.:e, particularly the testimony of Caparas, that the note and plastic
sachet !containing shabu came from him. Finally, finding no allegation of
conspqacy between Caparas and accused-appellant, the RTC held that the
case s all be judged based on their individual acts. 13
1
Aggrieved, accused-appellant appealedI 4 to the CA.

The CA Ruling

~n a Decision 15 dated November 29, 2018, the CA affirmed accused-

appellalnt's conviction, finding that his bare denial cannot prevail over the
positiv6 testimony of the prosecution witnesses stating that he was the source
of the s~abu which was supposed to be delivered and/or sold to Cua. Likewise,
j
10
See J at 6-7.
11
See id. at 8.
12 CA rbllo, pp. 69-76.
13
See id. at 74-76.
14
Recotds,
' p. 131.
15
Rollo[ pp. 3-25.

~
• DecisioJI 4 G.R. No. 250908
the CAj found that the prosecution was able to establish all the elements of the
crime charged, and that the integrity of the seized item was preserved in light
of the !officers' compliance with the requirements of the chain of custody
rule. 16

H.ence, this appeal. 17

The Issue Before the Court

he core issue for the Court's resolution is whether or not accused-

appellflt is guilty beyond reasonable doubt of Attempted Illegal Sale of
Dange~ous Drugs.

Th_e Court's Ruling

lhe appeal is meritorious.

ij\t the outset, it must be stressed that an appeal in criminal cases opens
the entµ-e case for review, and thus, it is the duty of the reviewing tribunal to
correct( cite, and appreciate errors in the appealed judgment whether they are
assign9d or unassigned. 18 "The appeal confers the appellate court full
jurisdiction over the case and renders such court competent to examine
record~, revise the judgment appealed from, increase the penalty, and cite the
proper brovision of the penal law." 19
I

I~ convicting accused-appellant of Attempted Illegal Sale of Dangerous

Drugs, as defined and penalized under Section 5, in relation to Section 26,
Article II of RA 9165, the courts a quo relied heavily on the testimony of
Caparas, another inmate. The crux of Caparas' testimony was that when JO
Roman~ frisked him, JO Romana found a note sealed with electrical tape
containing shabu, which Caparas claimed was given to him by accused-
1

appellrt for delivery to Cua.

In order to secure the conviction of an accused charged with Attempted

Illegal Sale of Dangerous Drugs, the prosecution must be able to prove: (a)
20
the ideritities of the buyer and the seller, the object, and the consideration;
and (b)! the fact that the sale of the illegal drugs was attempted. A crime is
attemp~ed when the offender commences the commission of a felony directly
by overt acts, and does not perform all the acts of execution, which should
i

l
I
16 See id. at 10-25.
17 Id. at Q6-27.
18 See Pr,ople v. Dahil, 750 Phil. 212,255 (2015).
19 PeopJe v. Comboy, 782 Phil. 187, 196 (2016); citation omitted. _ _ _ _
20 See P:eople v. Ano, 828 Phil. 439, 447-448 (2018) ; emphasis supphed, c1tatJ.on omitted.

~
Decisiol 5 G.R. No. 250908
I

producl the felony, by reason of some cause or accident other than his own
1
21
spont1eous desistance.

fter a meticulous review of the case vis-a-vis the elements of the crime
1

for which accused-appellant was convicted, the Court finds that reasonable
doubt Jxists with regard to the identities of the buyer and the seller.

formally, the identities of the seller and the buyer are proven by the
testim9nies of the apprehending officers, especially in cases involving buy-
bust opfrations where the accused was caught in jlagrante delicto. 22 This case,
however, is peculiar, in that accused-appellant was not himself found in
posses¥on of the illegal drugs subject of the attempted sale. Instead, the entire
basis of the charge against him - and of his eventual conviction as well-was
the tes¥mony of Caparas, a fellow inmate in whose custody the shabu was
actually found and who named accused-appellant as the source/seller thereof.
Caparak likewise identified another inmate, Cua, as the intended
recipieht/buyer of the shabu.
I
I
However, Caparas' bare testimony ascribing criminal liability upon
accuse4-appellant is neither trustworthy nor sufficient to convict the latter.
Lest it J)e forgotten, it was Caparas himself who was found in possession of
the illegal drugs. To Our mind, therefore, it was convenient for Caparas to
have nJmed accused-appellant as the source/seller of the illegal drugs in order
I
to evade criminal liability, as he has evidently done. Curiously, records are
I
bereft tjf showing that despite having been accosted by JO Romana in custody
of the illegal drugs, Caparas had not been charged with illegal possession
togethe~ with accused-appellant. Parenthetically, the RTC, as affirmed by the
I
CA, ruled that in the absence of allegations of conspiracy between Caparas
and ac~used-appellant, the case had to be judged on the basis of their
individhal acts. If such is the case, accused-appellant cannot be found guilty
based 9n the mere statements of Caparas sans any other independent evidence
indubitably pointing to him as the source/seller of the illegal drugs subject of
I
this ca*. Contrary to the findings of the courts a quo, the testimonies of JO
Romana and Warden Pajarillo did not corroborate Caparas' identification of
accuse<l-appellant as the source/seller of the said illegal drugs, containing as
it did dnly details of the latter's arrest and the proceedings that transpired

fu~ear I

ts it stands, aside from the bare testimony of Caparas, there is no other

evidence to prove beyond moral certainty that it was accused-appellant who
instruded Caparas to give the note and the shabu to Cua. To accept Caparas'
testimo~y on this score would be to countenance convictions based on empty
accusat~ons, as well as eva~ions of cr~minal liability, _in the case of Capar~s,
who, wias in actual possession of the illegal drugs. It 1s worthy to emphasize
I

I
21 People v. Buniag. G.R. No. 217661, June 29, 2019; citation omitted.
22 See Pbople v. Gat/abcryan, 669 Phil. 240, 253-254(2011).

~
Decisioi 6 G.R. No. 250908
I

that evbn the note that was seized from Caparas does not categorically reflect
the ndmes of either accused-appellant as the seller or Cua as the
I

recipiep.t/buyer, to wit:

"JADS
I lK YAN, MOIST LANG PERO AYOS YAN. HIDAP KAYA
,

MAGPALUSOT SI TROPA KO, SAKA TAGHIDAP SA LAYA NGAYON,

I
GpSTO KO MAKATABANG SA MGA AKI KO MASKI PANG
ALLOWANCE MAN LANG. SIMPLE LANG A PAG-ABOT BAYAD 0
KAI YA PAPAKUHA KO NA LANG SA TAONG ALAM MONG MALAPIT
S ~ - WALA SA LOOB NG SELDA NASA PASIL YO LANG. KILALA
23
TAT MANUGANG. HEHE."

,i\.ccordingly, the element of the "identities of the buyer and the

seller"I was not sufficiently established with absolute moral certainty by the
prosecution, thereby leaving a gaping room for reasonable doubt to exist as to
accuse/i-appellant' s guilt.
!

I
]n all criminal prosecutions, the prosecution bears the burden to
establi~h the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt. In discharging this
burden\ the prosecution's duty is to prove each and every element of the crime
chargeB. in the information to warrant a finding of guilt for that crime or for
any ot!er crime necessarily included therein. The prosecution must further
prove the participation of the accused in the commission of the offense. In
doing dll these, the prosecution must rely on the strength of its own evidence
and not anchor its success upon the weakness of the evidence of the accused.
The butden of proof placed on the prosecution arises from the presumption of
innocetce in favor of the accused that no less than the Constitution has
guaranteed. Conversely, as to his innocence, the accused has no burden of
I
proof, fy.ence, he must then be acquitted and set free should the prosecution not
overcome the presumption of innocence in his favor. In other words, the
weaknJss of the defense put up by the accused is inconsequential in the
proceecl.ings for as long as the prosecution has not discharged its burden of
I
proof in establishing the commission of the crime charged and in identifying
the acchsed as the malefactor responsible for it. 24
!

Il sum, it behooves this Court not to blindingly accept the flagrantly

I
wanting evidence of the prosecution in this case. Undoubtedly, the
prosecution failed to meet the required quantum of evidence sufficient to
support a conviction, in which case, the constitutional presumption of
innoce~ce prevails. To stress, when moral certainty as to culpability hangs in
the bal~ce, acquittal on reasonable doubt inevitably becomes a matter of
right. 25

2" i
' Reco~ds. p. 18.
24 Peopje v. Claro, 808 Phil. 455, 468-469 (2017); citation omitted.
25 Peopl'e v. Roble, 663 Phil. 147, 165-166(2011).

✓
Decision! 7 G.R. No. 250908

~EREFORE, the appeal is GRANTED. The Decision dated

November 29, 2018 of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CR-H.C. No. 10050
is hereiy REVERSED and SET ASIDE. Accordingly, accused-appellant
Ariel Q~ones y Loveria is ACQUITTED of the crime of Attempted Illegal
Sale of Dangerous Drugs on the ground of reasonable doubt.
I

IJet entry of judgment be issued immediately.

I

JooRDERED.

J,10/µ)J/
ESTELA M~ERLAS-BERNABE
Senior Associate Justice

WE CONCUR:

'G.GESMUNDO

'-

RICARD~1.osARIO
Assoc\•~ Ju,tire

ATTES\ATION

I attest that the conclusions in the above Decision had been reached in
consultition before the case was assigned to the writer of the opinion of the
Court'slDivision.

ESTELA M(i-ff:t{S-BERNABE
Senior Associate Justice
Chairperson, Second Division
Decision 8 G.R. No. 250908

CERTIFICATION

Pursuant to Section 13, Article VIII of the Constitution, and the

Division Chairperson's Attestation, I certify that the conclusions in the above
Decision had been reached in consultation before the case was assigned to the
writer of the opinion of the Court's Divisiod.

Chief\Justice