PEOPLE vs. AMIN

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES vs. KUSAIN AMIN y AMPUAN, a.k.a. "Cocoy"

G.R. No. 215942

January 18, 2017

Facts:

On January 2, 2004, at 5:40 p.m. more or less, at Landless, Colrai, Macabalan, Cagayan de Oro City, Philippines, the accused appellant was caught by the police who were positively identified by the police officers who conducted the buy-bust operation as the seller of the shabu presented in the case with approx. weight of 0.09 gram valued to more or less P100 and sold it to a poseur-buyer of PNP-CDO for a consideration of P100.00 marked money one (1) pc one hundred pesos bill with serial number FA246643, well knowing it to be a dangerous drug. The prosecution presented witnesses. Upon arraignment, accused-appellant, assisted by counsel, pleaded not guilty to the charge. Hence, trial ensued. The Trial Court rendered its decision convicting the accused appellant guilty of violation of Dangerous Drugs Act (R.A. 9165). The accused contended that there was no valid buy-bust operation, because the arresting team had not coordinated the matter with the Philippine Drug Enforcement Agency (PDEA), that the prosecution's failure to present the poseur-buyer weakened the arresting team's testimonies, the CA held that the non-presentation of the poseur-buyer is fatal only if there is no other eyewitness to the illicit transaction, as held in People v. Berdadero and as regards the failure of the police officers to immediately mark the alleged shabu at the crime scene (but only at the police station). The Court of Appeals denied the petition of the accused and affirmed the trial court’s decision.

Issue:

Whether or not the CA and RTC erred in finding the testimonial evidence of the prosecution witnesses sufficient to warrant appellant's conviction for the crimes charged.

Held:

Yes. The accused was acquitted. The Supreme Court reversed the decision of the Court of Appeals. While prior coordination with the PDEA is not necessary to make a buy-bust operation valid, the court is constrained to reverse the findings of the CA because the non-presentation of the poseur-buyer is fatal to the cause of the prosecution. In People v. Andaya, the importance of presenting the poseur-buyer's testimony before the trial court was underscored by the Court in this wise:

The justification that underlies the legitimacy of the buy-bust operation is that the suspect is arrested in flagranti delicto, that is, the suspect has just committed, or is in the act of committing, or is attempting to commit the offense in the presence of the arresting police officer or private person. The arresting police officer or private person is favoured in such instance with the presumption of regularity in the performance of official duty.

Proof of the transaction must be credible and complete. In every criminal prosecution, it is the State, and no other, that bears the burden of proving the illegal sale of the dangerous drug beyond reasonable doubt. This responsibility imposed on the State accords with the presumption of innocence in favour of the accused, who has no duty to prove his innocence until and unless the presumption of innocence in his favour has been overcome by sufficient and competent evidence.

WHEREFORE, the Court REVERSES and SETS ASIDE the Court of Appeals Decision dated 16 October 2014 in CA-GR. CR-I-LC. No. 01179 affirming the Decision dated 14 June 2013 issued by the Regional Trial Court, Branch 40, Cagayan de Oro City, in Criminal Case No. 2004-010; and ACQUITS accused-appellant KUSAIN AMIN y AMPUAN of the crime charged in Criminal Case No. 2004-010 on the ground of reasonable doubt. The Director of the Bureau of Corrections is hereby ORDERED to immediately release accused-appellant KUSAIN AMIN y AMPUAN from custody, unless he is being detained for some other lawful cause.