G.R. No. 67289 October 5, 1989
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, vs. MACARIO DIAMSAY Y PAGBA, accused-appellant.

FACTS

The prosecution’s evidence established that on February 3, 1983, a PC-INP Anti-Narcotics Team conducted a buy-bust operation in Manila based on a tip. Posing as a buyer, CIC Victor Ibarra approached the accused, Macario Diamsay, handed him marked money, and requested marijuana cigarettes. Diamsay left briefly and returned with twenty sticks wrapped in newspaper, which he gave to Ibarra. Upon Ibarra’s signal, the team arrested Diamsay. A forensic examination confirmed the cigarettes were marijuana. Diamsay, in an extrajudicial confession, admitted the sale but claimed he obtained the marijuana from a certain “Freddie,” to whom he gave the marked money. Freddie was never apprehended.
The defense presented a starkly different account. Diamsay testified that on the night in question, he was merely buying cigarettes at a store when Ibarra approached him, asked where to buy marijuana, and insisted Diamsay help him find a seller. Diamsay claimed he refused but was coerced and threatened by Ibarra into approaching a person named “Freddie.” He asserted that Ibarra gave Freddie money directly and received the marijuana, after which Ibarra immediately arrested him. Diamsay denied being a seller and characterized the operation as instigation.

ISSUE

Whether the guilt of the accused for the sale of marijuana has been proven beyond a reasonable doubt.

RULING

The Supreme Court ACQUITTED the accused-appellant. The ruling hinged on the constitutional presumption of innocence and the requisite standard of proof beyond reasonable doubt. The Court found the case presented a direct conflict between the prosecution’s narrative of a legitimate buy-bust sale and the defense’s claim of instigation, reducing the evidence to the word of the law enforcers against the word of the accused. The Court emphasized that in such close cases, the scales of justice must tilt in favor of the accused.
The legal logic is clear: the burden to overcome the presumption of innocence rests solely on the prosecution. Here, the evidence was deemed insufficient to constitute proof beyond reasonable doubt. The prosecution’s case relied heavily on the testimonies of the arresting officers, which the Court characterized as “self-serving claims” absent corroborative hard evidence. The failure to apprehend “Freddie” or recover the marked money, while not determinative, contributed to the reasonable doubt. The Court clarified that its duty is to apply the law strictly based on the evidence presented, not on societal ills, and concluded that the prosecution failed to meet its burden. The marijuana sticks were ordered surrendered to the NBI or Narcotics Command for destruction.