G.R. No. L-66646. April 15, 1988.
THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, vs. RONIE CABOVERDE Y ACAS, accused-appellant.

FACTS

The accused-appellant, Ronie Caboverde y Acas, was charged with the illegal sale of marijuana. The prosecution’s case relied on an entrapment operation. Police Major Encabo organized a team, including Fireman Garcia and Pat. de la Cerna, to apprehend a pusher known as “Ronie.” On August 28, 1983, Fireman Garcia, posing as a buyer and guided by an informant, allegedly met Caboverde on Padre Ramon Street. The prosecution claimed Garcia handed marked money to Caboverde, who in turn delivered 200 grams of marijuana. Caboverde was immediately arrested.
The defense presented a starkly different account. Caboverde testified he was on his way to church that Sunday morning when he was approached by his cousin and Fireman Garcia. Garcia inquired about drug pushers and, after Caboverde denied any knowledge, persuaded him to accompany Garcia to Major Encabo’s house for further conversation. Caboverde denied selling any marijuana and claimed he was shown the marijuana evidence only at Encabo’s house before being taken to the police station.

ISSUE

Whether the guilt of the accused-appellant for the illegal sale of marijuana was proven beyond reasonable doubt.

RULING

The Supreme Court acquitted the accused-appellant. The ruling centered on the prosecution’s failure to meet the burden of proof due to irreconcilable and material contradictions in the testimonies of its key witnesses regarding the crucial events following the alleged sale. These contradictions pertained to the immediate post-arrest custody of the appellant and the recovery of the marked money.
Major Encabo testified that after the arrest at Padre Ramon Street, the appellant, the marijuana, and the marked money were brought directly to his (Encabo’s) house. Conversely, both Fireman Garcia and Pat. de la Cerna testified that the appellant was taken directly to the police station, not to Encabo’s house. Garcia further stated the marked money was recovered from the appellant at the police station, while Encabo claimed he had already recovered part of the money earlier at his house. The Court found these discrepancies unexplained and of such magnitude as to cast serious doubt on the prosecution’s narrative.
The legal logic is grounded in the constitutional presumption of innocence, which requires the prosecution’s evidence to survive the test of reason and withstand careful scrutiny. The Court emphasized that conviction cannot rest on mere suspicion. When the state’s evidence is riddled with inconsistencies on material points—such as the chain of custody and the recovery of evidence integral to proving the sale—reasonable doubt is created. The defense’s version, which was not convincingly rebutted, therefore became plausible. Consequently, the prosecution did not overcome the presumption of innocence, necessitating an acquittal.