Case Digest (G.R. No. 68997)
Facts:
People of the Philippines v. Roberto Libag y Cabading, G.R. No. 68997, April 27, 1990, Supreme Court Second Division, Paras, J., writing for the Court. The accused-appellant, Roberto Libag y Cabading, was charged in an information with the attempted sale, delivery and distribution of three kilos of marijuana flowering tops in violation of R.A. No. 6425 (Dangerous Drugs Act of 1972 as amended). The information alleged the offense occurred on November 7, 1983, in Baguio City. The record shows that two Vice and Narcotics officers—Cpl. Eduardo Garcia and Pfc. Virgilio Visperas—testified regarding a buy-bust operation arranged through an alleged informer (poseur-buyer) that culminated in Libag’s arrest at the Leisure Lodge and the seizure of a multi-colored plastic bag containing three bundles subsequently chemically tested positive for marijuana.At trial, the prosecution presented the arresting officers and the forensic chemist whose analysis identified the seized bundles as marijuana with an aggregate weight of 3.20 kilos. The officers described how an informer purportedly arranged the purchase, signaled delivery, and how Libag handed the bag to the informer and was arrested; the informer/poseur-buyer himself was not produced as a witness and his identity was not revealed. Libag testified that he was a minor (above 17 but under 18 at the time), that he had been asked by three strangers to deliver a bag for P2.00, that he delivered the bag to a woman in a room who then locked him in and that policemen later appeared and arrested him; he denied ownership of the bag and knowledge of its marijuana contents. His testimony was corroborated by a fellow townsman who said he overheard the request and saw the bag topped by pechay.
The Regional Trial Court (First Judicial Region, Branch V, Baguio City) found the prosecution had shown consummated delivery but not an illegal sale because the informer (poseur-buyer) had not been presented; the trial court nevertheless convicted on the delivery and imposed penalty considerations (the trial court discussed the accused’s minority in mitigation). The accused appealed, and the case was brought to the Supreme Court for review. The main factual c...(Subscriber-Only)
Issues:
- Did the prosecution’s failure to produce or identify the poseur-buyer (informant) and its reliance on the arresting officers’ account render the prosecution evidence hearsay and deprive the accused of material testimony necessary for a fair trial?
- Was the element of knowledge—that the accused knew the bag contained marijuana—established beyond reasonable doubt?
- Did the alleged instigation or entrapment by the police, and the other claimed contradictions in the prosecution’s evidence, require acquittal or otherwise bar conviction?
- Is the variance between the information charging an attempt and the proo...(Subscriber-Only)
Ruling:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Ratio:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Doctrine:
- (Subscriber-Only)