COURT FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS:

After careful consideration of the testimony of the prosecutions

witnesses, this Court finds that there are circumstances which weakened the

evidence of the prosecution against the accused.

In upholding the validity of the operation, the objective test demands

that the details of the purported transaction be clearly shown, beginning from

the initial contact between the poseur-buyer and the pusher, the offer to

purchase, the promise or payment of the consideration, until the

consummation of the sale by the delivery of the illegal drug subject of the sale.

(People vs. Dela Cruz, G.R. No. 205414, April 4, 2016) The manner by which

the initial contact was made, the offer to purchase the drug, the payment of the

buy-bust money, and the delivery of the illegal drug must be the subject of

strict scrutiny by courts to insure that law-abiding citizens are not unlawfully

induced to commit an offense. (People vs. Guinto, G.R. No. 198314, September

24, 2014)

In light of these guiding principles, we rule that the prosecution failed to

present a clear picture on what really transpired on the buy-bust operation.

After careful consideration of the evidence presented by the prosecution,

this Court finds the following:

1. There is no direct evidence about the promise or payment of the

consideration by PO1 Anog to Christopher Suarez.

 In this case, PO1 Anog positively identified accused as the person he

transacted with and who handed to him the two sachets of shabu presented in

court. However, and as correctly pointed out by this Court, the prosecution was

unable to discharge its burden of establishing the element of consideration or

payment for the sachets of shabu. PO1 Anog practically admitted in his

testimony the lack of consideration or payment for the sachets of shabu

delivered to him by appellant, viz:

Q: Did you bring the M-16 rifle with you during that time?

A: It only contains a stick to look like an M-16 rifle, maam.

Q: So what did you show to him when you said the M-16 rifle is

with you?

A: Only the bag with a stick to like an M-16 rifle, Maam.

Q: How big is the bag?

A: Big Maam.

Q: So you mean to say that the bag you showed to Christopher

Suarez contains only several pieces of woods?

A: And stone, Maam.

(TSN, October 21, 2014, pp. 14-15)

In view of the absence of evidence on the actual exchange of shabu for

guns, the failure of the prosecution to present during trial the two handguns

allegedly used by the NBI operatives to exchange for shabu creates another

void in its case against the appellant. The marked money, or in this case the

handguns supposedly exchanged for the shabu, need not be presented if there
is independent testimony evidencing the fact of exchange (People v. Aletra,

198 SCRA 656). Since there was no such testimony, the inference that can be

drawn from the failure of the prosecution to present the handguns in evidence

is that the claimed guns for shabu transaction never occurred. (People vs.

Fider, G.R. No. 105285, June 3, 1993)

Clearly, the element of receipt of payment for the thing sold is absent in

this case. Hence, the offense of illegal sale of shabu against appellant cannot

stand.

Based on the above findings, the Court is not persuaded that the

evidence of guilt against Christopher Suarez for Violation of Section 5 in

relation to Section 26 of R.A. 9165, at this time is strong to support the

charges against him. Under these circumstances, the Court is of the

considered belief that the accused should be granted bail.

WHEREFORE, premises considered, the petition is hereby granted. For

his provisional liberty, the amount of Thousand Pesos

( is hereby fixed.

SO ORDERED.

Malolos City, Bulacan,

MANUEL R. ORTIGUERRA
Judge