3/10/2017 PeoplevsLagata:135323:June25,2003:J.

YnaresSantiago:FirstDivision

FIRSTDIVISION

[G.R.No.135323.June25,2003]

PEOPLEOFTHEPHILIPPINES,appellee,vs.EDELMALAGATAyMANFOSTE,
appellant.

DECISION
YNARESSANTIAGO,J.:

Edelma Lagata was accused of having in her possession, custody and control
MethamphetamineHydrochlorideorshabuwithoutauthorityoflaw.Theinformationreads:

Thatonoraboutthe10thdayofDecember,1996,inPasay,MetroManila,Philippinesandwithinthe
jurisdictionofthisHonorableCourt,theabovenamedaccused,EDELMALAGATAYMANFOSTEaka
BABY,withoutauthorityoflaw,didthenandtherewillfully,unlawfullyandfeloniouslyhaveinher
possession,custodyandcontrol257.422gramsofMethamphetamineHydrochloride(SHABU),aregulated
drug,withoutacorrespondinglicense.

CONTRARYTOLAW.[1]

ThecasewasdocketedasCriminalCaseNo.969539oftheRTCofPasayCity,Branch110.
UponarraignmentonJanuary21,1997,accusedassistedbyhercounseldepartepleadednot
guiltytothecrimechargedagainsther.
Aftertrial,thecourtrendereditsjudgment,thedispositiveportionofwhichreads:

WHEREFORE,judgmentisherebyrenderedfindingtheaccusedEDELMALAGATAyMANFOSTE,
GUILTYbeyondreasonabledoubtoftheoffenseofViolationofSection16ArticleIIIinrelationtoSection
20RepublicAct6425,asamendedbyRepublicAct7659,andherebyimposesonherthepenaltyof
RECLUSIONPERPETUAandcondemnssaidaccusedtopayafineofFiveHundredThousandPesos
(P500,000.00)withoutsubsidiaryimprisonmentincaseofinsolvency.

The257.422gramsofMethamphetamineHydrochlorideorshabu(ExhibitB,B1aB1b)arehereby
declaredconfiscatedinfavorofthegovernmentbutinviewofthefactthatsaidspecimenisinthepossession
ofForensicChemist,Mrs.LiliaB.AriolaoftheForensicChemistryDivisionoftheNationalBureauof
Investigation,saidForensicChemistorherdulyauthorizedrepresentativeherebyorderedtocausethe
deliveryandtransportationthereoftotheDangerousDrugsBoardfordispositioninaccordancewithlaw.

TheaccusedshallbecreditedinfullfortheperiodofherdetentionatthePasayCityJailduringthependency
ofthiscaseprovidedthatsheagreedinwritingtoabidebyandcomplystrictlywiththerulesandregulations
ofthesaidCityJail.

SOORDERED.[2]

On December 10, 1996, while appellant was tending her mothers store at 1742 Tramo St.,
PasayCity,ashortanddarkcomplexionedmanwearingjeansandapairofslippersapproached
andaskedhertodeliverapackagewrappedinnewspaperandplacedinplasticbagtoacertain
Chinggay, a boarder in her mothers house.Fernando Hernandez, one of the defense witnesses,
wasatthestorebuyingsoftdrinks.Appellantdidnotexaminethecontentsofthepackageandthe
man hurriedly left the store. She entered the living room of the house to give the package to
Chinggay,whowasinoneoftheroomsofthehouse,whenshesawtwomensittingonthesofa.
The men approached her and introduced themselves as agents of the National Bureau of
http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2003/jun2003/135323.htm 1/7
3/10/2017 PeoplevsLagata:135323:June25,2003:J.YnaresSantiago:FirstDivision

Investigation. The men took the package from her and opened it. To her surprise, it contained
shabu.TheNBIagentsimmediatelyarrestedher.
Appellant does not deny the fact that at the time of her arrest she was in possession of the
packagewhichturnedouttocontainshabu.However,shedeniedknowledgeofthecontentsofthe
packagehandedtoherbytheunidentifiedman.[3]
Theprosecutionhasadifferentversionoftheevents.
OnNovember27,1996,AgentsDaveSegunialandRommelVallejooftheSpecialTaskForce
OfficeoftheNationalBureauofInvestigationreceivedatipfromitsinformantthatacertainBaby
and Chinggay, both residents of 1742 Tramo St., Pasay City, were engaged in drug trafficking.
They were immediately instructed by their Executive Officer, Atty. Edmund Arugay, to conduct
surveillanceandvalidationoftheinformationand,iffoundpositive,toplanforatestbuyorapply
forasearchwarrant.Thus,theytookpicturesofthesubjecthouseand,onDecember1,1996,a
testbuywasconductedwheretheirconfidentialinformant,accompaniedbyAgentVallejo,posed
as buyer of shabu and Agent Segunial acted as their driver. They were able to buy P1,000.00
worth of substance weighing .1045 grams which, when submitted for laboratory examination,
proved positive for shabu. The following day, they obtained a search warrant against Baby and
ChinggayfromtheRegionalTrialCourtofManila.
The team tried to serve the search warrant twice but their operations were aborted.On their
first attempt, they were unable to gain entrance to the premises since the house had two steel
gatesandtheycouldnotforcethemselvesintothepremises,otherwise,thesubjectswillbeableto
dispose of the shabu and elude arrest. On the second occasion, they encountered watchers
outsidethehousewho,basedontheirexperience,actedaslookoutwhowouldgivesignalstothe
subjectsiftheyseesuspiciouslookingpeople.
On December 10, 1996, at around 9:00 a.m., the team proceeded to the area with another
confidentialinformantknowntothesubjects.Whentheyarrivedatthehouse,theinformanttalked
tothepersoninsidethestoreandtheywereallowedtoenterthehouse.Thefirststeelgatewas
openedbyamanfromacrossthestreet,whilethesecondgatewasopenedbyaladywhocame
from inside the house. They were led inside by another lady and were told to wait in the living
room.Afewminuteslater,appellantenteredthelivingroomfromthestore,carryingaplasticbag.
The informant gestured that she was Baby, one of the subjects. Agent Vallejo stood up and
showedhisbadge.Atthesametime,AgentSegunialpressedthebeepertosignaltherestofthe
team. Appellant cried, huwag po, huwag po! They confiscated the plastic bag with pink stripes,
whichcontainedtwopouchesofwhitecrystallinesubstance,laterfoundtobeMethamphetamine
Hydrochlorideorshabu.
Afterappellantwasarrested,AgentVallejoheardrunningfootstepsupstairs,soheimmediately
went up the stairs. He forcibly opened the door and saw a woman fleeing through another
staircaseatthebackofthehouse.Hechasedthewomanbutfailedtocatchher.
Theteamsearchedthehousebutfoundnootherarticlesorparaphernalia.Ataroundthattime,
themediamenandthebarangaycaptainarrived.[4]
Theonlyissuetoberesolvedinthisappealiswhetherornotappellantisguiltyofthecrime
chargedagainsther.
For one to be convicted of illegal possession of prohibited or regulated drugs, the following
elementsmustconcur:(1)theaccusedisinpossessionofanitemorobjectwhichisidentifiedto
beaprohibiteddrug(2)suchpossessionisnotauthorizedbylawand(3)theaccusedfreelyand
consciouslypossessedthesaiddrug.[5]
In the case at bar, the presence of the first two elements of the offense is uncontroverted.
Appellant does not deny that she had in her possession shabu at the time of her arrest. She
certainlydidnothavetheauthoritytopossessthesaidregulateddrug.Whatappellantcontendsto
bewantinginthiscaseisthethirdelement.
Appellant maintained that the package of shabu did not belong to her that she was merely
askedtohandthepackagetoaboarderinhermothershouseandthatshewasnotawareofthe

http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2003/jun2003/135323.htm 2/7
3/10/2017 PeoplevsLagata:135323:June25,2003:J.YnaresSantiago:FirstDivision

contents thereof when it was handed to her. Even the prosecution failed to prove that she had
knowledgeofthecontentsofthepackage.Thus,itcannotbesaidthatshewascaughtinflagrante
delicto,sinceshewasnotconsciouslycommittingacrimewhentheNBIagentsaccostedher.[6]
Thetrialcourt,ontheotherhand,consideredappellantsdefenseasabsurd,preposterousand
unworthyofbelief.
Weareverymuchawareofthewellsettledrulethatfactualfindingsofthetrialcourtdeserve
utmost respect and will not be disturbed on appeal because the trial court, unlike reviewing
tribunals,hadafirsthandopportunitytoobservethedemeanorandtheconductofthewitnesses
andcouldthusbetterassesstheircapacitytospeakthetruth.[7]Nevertheless,suchruleadmitsof
exceptions, such as when the trial court has overlooked certain facts or circumstances of
substanceandvalue,whichifconsideredwouldchangetheresultofthecase.Afterapainstaking
review of the records of the case, we find certain circumstances which if weighed would tilt the
scalesofjusticeinfavorofappellantandcastadoubtonherguilt.
Anentthethirdelement,wehaveheldthatpossessionofillegaldrugsmustbewithknowledge
of theaccusedorthatanimuspossidendi existed together with the possession or control of said
articles.[8] Knowledge refers to a mental state of awareness of a fact. Since courts cannot
penetratethemindofanaccusedandthereafterstateitsperceptionswithcertainty,resorttoother
evidenceisnecessary.Animuspossidendi,asastateofmind,maybedeterminedonacaseto
casebasisbytakingintoconsiderationthepriororcontemporaneousactsoftheaccused,aswell
as the surrounding circumstances. Its existence may and usually must be inferred from the
attendanteventsineachparticularcase.[9]
Theexistenceofanimuspossidendiisonlyprimafacie.Thus,itissubjecttocontraryproofand
mayberebuttedbyevidencethattheaccuseddidnotinfactexercisepowerandcontroloverthe
thinginquestion,anddidnotintendtodoso.[10]
Underthefactsandcircumstancesobtaininginthiscase,wefindthatappellantsexplanation
of how she came into possession of the package without knowing that it contained shabu is
credibleandsufficienttorebuttheprimafaciepresumptionofanimuspossidendi.Simplyput,she
justhappenedtobeatthewrongplaceatthewrongtime.
Appellants narration was supported by credible corroboration from an unacquainted and
disinterestedperson,FernandoHernandez,whotestifiedthus:
ATTY.OLIVETE
Q.Mr.witness,onDec.10,1996willyoutelltheHonorableCourtwherewereyou?
WITNESS
A.Iwasatthestorebuyingsoftdrinks.
ATTY.OLIVETE
Q.Doyourememberthelocationofthatstore?
WITNESS
A.Yessir.
xxxxxxxxx
ATTY.OLIVETE
Q.Whywereyouatthestoreatabout11:00oclockinthemorningonthatDec.10,1996?
WITNESS
A.I was buying softdrinks while waiting for the owner of the house who went out to buy electrical
materialsfortheconstructionofanearbybuilding.
COURT
Q.Youmeantosaytherewasnobodymanningthesarisaristore?
WITNESS
http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2003/jun2003/135323.htm 3/7
3/10/2017 PeoplevsLagata:135323:June25,2003:J.YnaresSantiago:FirstDivision

A.TherewasYourHonor.
ATTY.OLIVETE
Q.After,orasyouwerebuyingsoftdrinksatthestoredidyourecallifyouevernoticedsomething?
WITNESS
A.Yessir.
ATTY.OLIVETE
Q.Whatisthatthingyounoticedwhileyouwerebuyingsoftdrinksatthestore?
WITNESS
A.Ichanceduponapersonwhodidnotbuyandhewascarryingwithhimaplasticbagsir.
ATTY.OLIVETE
Q.Soyounoticedamanarrivedwithapackage,willyoupleasetelltheCourtwhatthisparticular
mandidashewasbesideinthestore?
WITNESS
A.Theplasticthenhewascarrying,hewasthenholdingwashandedtothepersonwhowastending
tothestore.
COURT
Q.Themanyousaidwhogavesomethingtothepersoninsidethestore,doyouknowhim?
WITNESS
A.No,YourHonor.
COURT
Q.Haveyoueverseenthatpersonpriortoyourseeinghimthefirsttimeatthestore?
WITNESS
A.No,YourHonor.
COURT
Q.Thepersontowhomhegavethatpackagediditappeartoyouthattheyknoweachother?
WITNESS
A.Noanswer.
COURT
Q.Doyoufeelthattheydonotknoweachother,justansweryesorno,whyareyousoevasive?
WITNESS
A.No,YourHonor,theydonotknoweachother.
xxxxxxxxx
ATTY.OLIVETE
Q.Whatdidthemandowhenhewentnearthestore?
WITNESS
A.The man who approached the store asked a favor from the person inside the store to give the
packagetoacertainpersonwhosenameIcouldnolongerrecallsir.
ATTY.OLIVETE
Q.Couldyourecallthegenderofthepersontowhomthatparticularpackagetobegiven?
WITNESS
A.Itisawoman.Thepackageisforawomansir.
ATTY.OLIVETE
http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2003/jun2003/135323.htm 4/7
3/10/2017 PeoplevsLagata:135323:June25,2003:J.YnaresSantiago:FirstDivision

Q. And what did the person inside the store do when after the request for the package to be
deliveredwasuttered?
WITNESS
A.ThepersonwentinsidethehousetogetthesoftdrinksIwasbuyingandtohandthepackageto
thatpersonwhothepackageisaddressedto,sir.[11]
Appellantslackofknowledgeofthecontentsoftheplasticbagbecomesallthemorecredible
consideringthatwhentheNBIagentsconductedatestbuytovalidatethetipgiventothembytheir
confidential informant, they relied entirely on the information that a certain Baby and Chinggay
weresellingshabu.AgentVallejo,narratinghowthetestbuywasconducted,testifiedasfollows:
COURT
Continue.Lastquestionthatweaskedwasaboutyoudecidedtohaveatestbuy.Whatamount
wereyouabletobuy?
AP1,000worthofshabu.
COURT
HowmanygramswereyouabletobuyfromthatP1,000?
AWewereabletopurchase
COURT
...Whoactedasbuyer?
ATheinformant,yourHonor.
COURT
Youmeantosaytheinformantwasadmitted?Inthissketch,thereisasteelgate.According to
you,youstayedoutsidethehouse.
AYes,yourHonor.
COURT
Youwereabletoenterthegate?
AYes,theyopenedthegateforus.Itisboltedfrominside.Aladyunboltedthegate.
xxxxxxxxx
COURT
Whydidyounotaccompanytheinformant?
AIwasnotallowedtoenterthehouse.
COURT
Whodidnotallowyoutoenterthehouse?
ATheladywhoopenedthegate.
COURT
Isthatladythesameaccused?
ANo,yourHonor.
COURT
Sheisanotherperson?
AYes,yourHonor.
COURT
Continue.
COURT
Soyouwerejustallowedinsidethecompoundbutyourinformantwasabletoenter.
http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2003/jun2003/135323.htm 5/7
3/10/2017 PeoplevsLagata:135323:June25,2003:J.YnaresSantiago:FirstDivision

AYes,yourHonor.
xxxxxxxxx
FISCALTILLADA
Mr.Vallejo,yousaidthattheinformantwasabletobuyshabufromthesuspect.Didyoucometo
knowfromwhomtheinformantwasabletobuytheshabu?
AYes,maam.
QFromwhom?
AFromBaby.
QTheinformantlaterontoldyouthatshewasabletobuyshabufromBaby.
AYes,maam.[12]
Whencrossexamined,thewitnessfurthernarrated,thus:
ATTYPAZZIUAGGAN
Soyoucouldnotseewhatwashappeningfromoutsidetotheinside?
AYes,maam.
QSoyouhavenopersonalknowledgeofwhattranspiredinsidewhenyourinformantwentinsidethe
house?
ANo.
QAndyoumerelyreliedontheinformationtoldtoyouafterwards?
AYes,maam.
QYouhadnowayofcheckingthetruth?
AWetrustedourinformant.[13]
The foregoing testimony reveals that the NBI agents had no personal knowledge that herein
appellant was peddling shabu. In fact, they did not know the identity of the appellant before
December10,1996,whentheyservedthesearchwarrant.[14]Onlytheinformantwhotransacted
the test buy saw the alleged pushers. This notwithstanding, the prosecution did not present the
confidentialinformantaswitness.Wehaveheldinmanycases[15]thatthetestimonyoftheposeur
buyer becomes material and indispensable when the appellant denies having committed the
prohibited act. Without the testimony of the poseurbuyer, more often than not, there is no
convincingevidencethatshedidsellorpossesstheprohibitedorregulateddrug.[16]Especiallyif
therearenoothereyewitnesstotheillicittransaction,thenonpresentationoftheposeurbuyercan
befataltothecaseoftheprosecution.[17]Infine,whattheyreportedlylearnedfromtheinformant
wasindubitablyhearsayasthelatterwasnevercalledtoappearandtestifyatthetrial.[18]
Thelikelihoodofhavingmistakenappellantasthepusherisfurtherbolsteredbythefactthat
during the search, the NBI agents employed another confidential asset other than the one who
actedastheposeurbuyerduringthetestbuy.Furthermore,astestifiedtobyAgentVallejo,there
werethreeladiesinsidethehouse,includingtheappellant.Thefirstladywastheonewhoopened
thegate,thesecondladywastheonewhobroughttheminthehouseandwentupstairs,andthe
thirdladywasappellant,whoenteredthelivingroomthroughthedoorconnectingtothestore.[19]
NBI agents placed too much reliance on their informants that a certain Baby lived in the house
subjectofthesearchwarrant,makingnoinitiativestofindoutwhetheritwastrue,oratthevery
leastascertaintheidentityoftheallegedpushers.
True,appellantwasarrestedwhileinpossessionoftheregulateddrug.Thisfactisnotdenied.
However,appellantslackofknowledgeofthecontentsoftheplasticbagcastsareasonabledoubt
as to her guilt. Her guilt cannot be sustained where the prosecutions evidence is anchored on
shakyfoundations.Theprosecutionhastheonusprobandiofestablishingtheguiltoftheaccused
beyondreasonabledoubt.[20]Muchasweabhortheproliferationofdrugpushers,wecannotallow

http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2003/jun2003/135323.htm 6/7
3/10/2017 PeoplevsLagata:135323:June25,2003:J.YnaresSantiago:FirstDivision

theincarcerationofanindividualbasedoninsufficientfactualnexusofsaidpersonsparticipationin
thecommissionoftheoffense.[21]
WHEREFORE,inviewoftheforegoing,thedecisionoftheRegionalTrialCourtofPasayCity,
Branch 110, in Criminal Case No. 969539, finding appellant Edelma Lagata y Manfoste guilty
beyond reasonable doubt of violation of Section 16, Article III, Republic Act No. 6425 (The
Dangerous Drugs Act of 1972), as amended, is REVERSED and SET ASIDE. Appellant is
ACQUITTED of the offense charged on the ground of reasonable doubt. She is ordered
RELEASEDfromdetentionunlesssheisbeingheldforsomeotherlawfulcause.
Costsdeoficio.
SOORDERED.
Davide,Jr.,C.J.,(Chairman),Vitug,Carpio,andAzcuna,JJ.,concur.

[1]Records,p.1.

[2]Rollo,p.30,pennedbyJudgePorfirioG.Macaraeg.

[3]Rollo,BriefforAccusedAppellant,pp.5782.

[4]SeeDecision,supra.

[5]Peoplev.Khor,366Phil.762,745[1999],citedinPeople v. De Guzman, G.R. Nos. 11795253,14February2001,

[7]Peoplev.Cordero,G.R.Nos.13689496,7February2001,351SCRA383,396.

[8]Peoplev.Tee,G.R.Nos.14054647,January20,2003.

[9]Peoplev.Burton,335Phil1003,10241025[1997].

[10]Ibid.

[11]TSN,January22,1998,pp.712.

[12]TSN,June6,1997,pp.911.

[13]Ibid.,p.34.

[14]SeeTSN,June6,1997,p.40.

[15] People v. Fider, G.R. No. 105285, 3 June 1993, 223 SCRA 117 People v. Sillo, G.R. No. 91001, 18 September
1992, 214 SCRA 74 People v. Tantiado, G.R. Nos. 9279596, 2 September 1992, 213 SCRA 365 People v.
Fulgarillas,G.R.No.91160,4August1992,212SCRA76Peoplev.Olaes,G.R.No.76547,30July1990,188
SCRA91Peoplev.Ramos,G.R.Nos.8540102,4June1990,186SCRA184Peoplev.Sahagun,G.R.No.
62024,12February1990,182SCRA91[1990]Peoplev.Rojo,G.R.No.82737,5July1989,175SCRA119
Peoplev.Ale,229Phil.81[1986].
[16]Peoplev.Ramos,G.R.Nos.8540102,7June1990.

[17]Peoplev.Uy,G.R.No.129019,16August2000,338SCRA232,224.

[18]Peoplev.Olaes,G.R.No.76547,30July1990,

[19]Ibid.,p.20.

[20]Peoplev.Melosantos,315Phil.622,647[1995].

[21]Ibid.

http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2003/jun2003/135323.htm 7/7