G.R. No. 68997 - People vs. Libag y Cabading

The case involved appellant Roberto Libag y Cabading, a minor aged above 17 but below 18, who was charged with attempting to sell, deliver, give away, and distribute three (3) kilos of marijuana flowering tops in contravention of Section 4, Article II of Republic Act No. 6425 (Dangerous Drugs Act of 1972, as amended).
The trial court in Baguio City, through its trial proceedings in the First Judicial Region, Branch V, found Libag guilty beyond reasonable doubt and imposed the penalty of life imprisonment along with a fine of P20,000.00 and costs.
Appellant challenged his conviction on various grounds, arguing that the prosecution evidence was insufficient and marred by procedural and substantive irregularities.

According to the prosecution’s narrative, on November 7, 1983, Libag was allegedly approached by three men while he waited for a ride near the Philippine Rabbit Station along Magsaysay Avenue, Baguio City.
The accused, a penniless youth, was said to have been offered P2.00 in exchange for delivering a plastic bag. The bag, later examined and found to contain bundles of marijuana flowering tops, was handed over as part of an alleged errand.
After delivering the bag to what was described as a “big house” (later specified as a room in the Leisure Lodge), Libag was apprehended by law enforcement officers; the only personal item found on him at the time of arrest was a lighter.

Testimonies of Cpl. Eduardo Garcia and Pfc. Virgilio Visperas were central to the evidence.

They testified that an informer had reported that two male persons were offering to sell marijuana and that a buy-bust operation was promptly organized by Lt. Manansala.
Their account described the operations carried out at Elena’s Lunch initially and later at the Leisure Lodge where Libag allegedly delivered the plastic bag.

The prosecution’s evidence largely rested on these police officers’ recollection, which was considered hearsay because:

Their knowledge of the transaction was based on the alleged statement of a would-be buyer (the informer), whose identity was never disclosed.
They did not witness the actual transaction between the accused and the purported buyer, thereby leaving gaps marked by hearsay.

Physical evidence included the plastic bag (Exhibit ‘E’) and its contents (Exhibits ‘A’, ‘B’, ‘C’, ‘D’, and ‘F’), with chemical analysis by the PC Crime Laboratory confirming a positive test for marijuana.

Libag contended that he was merely an errand boy who, while waiting for a ride, was approached by three men asking him to deliver a plastic bag.

He maintained that he did not know the bag’s actual contents beyond an assumption that it contained “pechay” (a type of vegetable), given the visible top portion.

The accused explained that upon reaching the destination—a big house where the door was answered and later locked by a woman—he attempted to exit promptly after delivering the bag.
Testimony from his townmate Alsado A-at corroborated Libag’s version by affirming that the bag showed visible signs of contain “pechay” on its top.

The prosecution failed to present the alleged “buyer” as a witness, a key figure whose testimony might have clarified the alleged agreement to sell.
Inconsistencies were noted in the accounts given by the police officers regarding the identity and actions of the buyer:

Cpl. Garcia and Pfc. Visperas provided conflicting details such as the buyer’s gender, his physical proximity to Libag, and the manner in which money was supposedly exchanged.

During cross-examination, both police officers were prevented from disclosing the identity of the informer, further undermining the credibility and completeness of the evidence.

Whether the prosecution failed to prove beyond reasonable doubt that Libag knowingly delivered marijuana.
Whether the evidence presented, primarily the hearsay testimony of police officers, was sufficient as proof of the accused’s knowledge of the contents of the plastic bag.

Whether the failure to present the alleged “buyer” (the informer) as a witness prejudiced the accused’s right to a fair trial.
Whether the absence of this key eyewitness testimony rendered the prosecution’s case inconsistent and inadequate.

Whether the suppression or non-disclosure of the informer's identity and related evidence resulted in a miscarriage of justice.
Whether the inconsistencies in the police officers’ testimonies created a reasonable doubt as to Libag’s culpability.

Whether the transaction, if any, only constituted a delivery rather than an attempted sale, and if so, whether that affected the degree of mens rea (knowledge) required for conviction.
Whether the trial court erred in framing the accused's actions as “knowing delivery” when reasonable alternative explanations existed.