On cross-examination Benny Iglesias testified:
x x x x x x x x x
Q. And did I get you right when you said earlier that wheyou conducted the buy-bust operation in the afternoon of August 17, 1988 at Bambang, you did not know yet the person to, whom you intend to buy the marijuana, is that correct?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. And when you formed the team to conduct the buy bust operation, you do not know Yet the person whom you intend to arrest?
A. Yes, sir.
x x x x x x x x x
COURT:
Q. Will you tell the court what particular reason you have for picking particularly on the accused among the many persons at the pool house to asked (sic) if he has some stuff.
A. Because the suspect is in rugged attire wearing sleeveless T-shirt and short maong pants, Your Honor.
Q. Nobody pointed to the suspect to you as the pusher of marijuana?
A. None, your Honor.
Q. How are the other persons in the vicinity of the pool house attired?
x x x x x x x x x
(TSN, pp. 1-6)
While Benny Iglesias testified that they conducted a surveillance a week before they actually conducted the buy-bust operation, they had not identified any body as their subject. In his direct testimony, he said that he did not yet know from whom they were going to buy marijuana and it was his informer who pointed to the accused-appellant as a pusher of Marijuana. On cross-examination, however, Benny Iglesias testified that the only reason why he picked on the accused-appellant was because he was the only person in the hall wearing maong pants and sleeveless T-shirt.
There was no indication nor information that prior to the arrest of the accused-appellant he was a known drug-pusher. Likewise, there was no indication that after a surveillance of the target area was conducted by the police officers, the accused was already identified and marked as a person peddling marijuana and whose arrest was sought. In buy-bust operations, a surveillance is usually conducted to identify a drug-pusher who would be the subject of the entrapment. In other cases of buy-bust operations, the police team who conducts the operation does so after a reliable informant point to a particular place where the sale of the prohibited drugs by notorious drug pusher is rampant. In this case, the police team who allegedly entrapped the accused-appellant went to the billiard hall and accosted the latter because of the clothes he was wearing and as an afterthought, because he was allegedly pointed to by a police informer as being a drug pusher.
The Court is aware that the commission of the offense of illegal sale of marijuana requires merely the consummation of the selling transaction. What is important is that the poseurbuyer received the marijuana from the accused (People vs. Dekingco, G.R. No. 87685, Sept. 13, 1990, 189 SCRA 512, People vs. Fernandez, et al., G.R. No. 80481, June 27, 1990; People vs. De la Cruz and Beltran, G.R. No. 83260, April 18, 1990, 184 SCRA 416). However, courts should not accept hookline and sinker, the testimony of the alleged poseur-buyer that he was able to buy the prohibited drug from the accused. By the very nature of anti-narcotics operations, the need for entrapment procedures, the use of shady characters as informants, the ease with which sticks of marijuana or grams of heroine can be planted in pockets or hands of unsuspecting provincial hicks and the secrecy that inevitably shrouds all drug deals, the possibility of abuse is great (People vs. Ale, G.R. No. L-70998, October 14, 1986, 145 SCRA 50). Considering the gravity of the penalty for this offense, courts should be careful in receiving and believing the testimony ofthe alleged poseurbuyer especially when none of his teammates were presented to corroborate his story. We have in many cases (People vs. Fernanda, 145 SCRA 151; People vs. Lati, G.R. No. 70393, April 17, 1990,184 SCRA 336; People vs. Yatuc, 188 SCRA 1) expressed Our reservations on the propriety of buy-bust operations. We held in these cases that the common modus operandi of [anti] narcotic agents of utilizing poseur-buyers does not always commend itself as the most reliable way to go after violators of the Dangerous Drugs Act as it is susceptible to mistake, harassment, extortion and abuse.
It is also worthy to note that on direct examination Benny Iglesias testified that the markings on the ten peso (Pl0.00) bill were written by the officer-on-the case, Donato Jeada (TSN, P. 18), after the arrest of the accused-appellant (TSN, p. 19). However, Donato Jeada, testified on direct examination that the markings on the bill were written by the arresting officer, Benny Iglesias (TSN, p. 24) before the buy-bust operations (TSN, p. 25). The inconsistency in the testimony of two (2) principal prosecution witnesses had not been explained. The testimony of Jeada is important to corroborate Iglesias testimony, at least, to confirm the latter's claim that the Pasig Police Force had in fact planned and set out the details of the buy-bust operation where the accused-appellant was allegedly caught in flagrante delicto. As it turned out however, Jeada's testimony tended to cast a cloud on the veracity of the material witness testimony.
In several cases, We held that the testimony of a singl witness, if credible and positive and if it satisfies the court as the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt is sufficient to convict (People vs. Consuelo, 184 SCRA 406; People vs. Javier, G.R. No. 70997, February 28, 1990). In this case, however, We are not convinced of the veracity of the testimony of Benny Iglesias that the accused-appellant was caught in flagrante. His testimony was characterized by inconsistencies, indirectness and sometimes uncertainties.
On the other hand, the defense witnesses were more direct and straight-forward. Accused-appellant testified that on that same afternoon, he was in a store about 70-80 meters away from their house, taking a snack. A tricycle ridden by two (2) policemen arrived. When they alighted, they approached the accused-appellant and asked him to go with them because a certain Major Montefalcon of the Pasig Police would like to talk to him. He was brought to the police station but he was not presented to Major Montefalcon. Instead, Benny Iglesias took out marijuana from his wallet, presented it to the accused and asked him to admit ownership of the same. Of course, he did not admit ownership of the marijuana. He further testified that he was not allowed to go home but instead, he was locked up in jail at the third floor of the police building. He was not investigated until the next day, August 18, 1988 before Fired Franchito Diamante. He was able to Identify one of the policemen who brought him to the police station as Jose Apruebo because the latter was once a "standby" in their place.
The testimony of the accused that he was merely taking a snack in a sari-sari store when the police officers invited him to the police station was corroborated by the store owner, Gregorio Tumambing, also the Kagawad ng Lupong Tagapamayapa in the place (TSN, p. 56). Tumambing also testified that he did not see that the police officers search the body of the accused.
Q. And, did you learned (sic) why Jerome was there? Did you come to know the reason why he was detained in the municipal jail of Pasig Police on August 17, 1988?
A. It was also from the police at the gate of the jail who told me that Jerome Honrada was really detained because of marijuana, sir.
Q. Why? Was there anything recovered from Jerome Honrada during that time that the two (2) policemen approached him at your store on August 17, 1988 while the accused Jerome Honrada was taking his snack at your store?
A. Up to now, I am still asking myself why the police would detain him. Because why (sic) they approached Jerome Honrada at my store, they did not search his body and they did not tell to Jerome that he was being arrested for any violation of law and that is what I also tell (sic) to the wife of Jerome Honrada upon reaching back home from the police station, sir.
Q. You mean to say, at the time the police approached him, nothing was said to him except that Major Montefalcon was inviting him and he also wanted to see and talk to Jerome?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. And, did they show Jerome any warrant of arrest or search warrant?
A. Nothing was shown to him, sir. They never searched his body, the meeting was very casual. (p. 57, TSN)
There is a common presumption applied in cases involving violations of the Dangerous Drugs Act of regular performance of duty by police officers conducting buy-bust operations. When the police officers had no motive in testifying falsely against the accused or when no physical violence or harm was applied to the accused, courts are bent on upholding the presumption of regularity of performance of duty by police officers. However, We also held in People vs. Ale, G.R. No. 70998, October 14, 1986, 145 SCRA 60 that the presumption that official duty (is) regularly performed cannot, by itself, prevail against the constitutional presumption of innocence accorded an accused person.
In this catie, tie lone testimony of Benny Iglesias as regard what actually happened during the alleged buy-bust was belie not only by the accused but also by the owner of the store whe the accused was, according to both of them (accused and storeowner), taking a snack. The store owner who was also a Lupon ng Tagapamayapa had no reason to favor the accused or pezjure himself to shield an alleged drug-pusher, if it were true.
ACCORDINGLY, the decision of the court a quo is REVERSED. The accused-appellant, Jerome Honrada is ACQUITTED of the crime charged on grounds of reasonable doubt.
SO ORDERED.
Narvasa, C.J., Cruz and Griño-Aquino, JJ., concur.
Footnotes
* The name also appears as Donato Jedda in the record.
** Note: The information alleged that the accused-appellant committed the crime on August 17, 1988.
