G.R. No. 111888 . November 8, 1994
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, vs. JOSERIEL RIGODON Y RESTON and EFREN TORREJANO Y APARICIO, accused, JOSERIEL RIGODON Y RESTON, accused-appellant.

FACTS

Accused-appellant Joseriel Rigodon and Efren Torrejano were charged with violating Section 4, Article 2 of the Dangerous Drugs Act of 1972 ( Republic Act No. 6425 , as amended) for allegedly conspiring to possess and sell marijuana. The prosecution’s evidence, primarily from PO3 Abundio Vistal, stated that on July 31, 1992, in Clarin, Bohol, a buy-bust operation was conducted. PO3 Vistal acted as a poseur-buyer and purchased five sticks of marijuana from Rigodon for ₱30.00, using marked money. Upon the pre-arranged signal, Rigodon and Torrejano were arrested, and ten additional marijuana sticks were recovered from Rigodon. The prosecution presented the marked money and the complaint as exhibits but did not present the seized marijuana sticks, any laboratory analysis, or a forensic chemist as evidence. The defense presented a different version, claiming Rigodon was merely asked to accompany the police to locate a certain “Dondong Aleman” and was arbitrarily detained. The Regional Trial Court of Bohol, Branch II, convicted Rigodon of the crime and sentenced him to reclusion perpetua and a ₱20,000.00 fine, while acquitting Torrejano. Rigodon appealed, arguing errors in the trial court’s judgment.

ISSUE

Whether the prosecution proved beyond reasonable doubt the guilt of accused-appellant Joseriel Rigodon for the illegal sale of marijuana, considering the absence of the corpus delicti (the marijuana sticks) and corroborative forensic evidence.

RULING

The Supreme Court ACQUITTED accused-appellant Joseriel Rigodon on the ground of reasonable doubt. The Court emphasized that for a successful prosecution of illegal sale of marijuana, the identity of the prohibited drug as the corpus delicti must be conclusively established. Here, the prosecution failed to present the seized marijuana sticks as evidence in court, nor did it provide any laboratory analysis or expert testimony to confirm that the substances were indeed marijuana. While PO3 Vistal claimed to have identified the sticks as marijuana by smell, he admitted he had no formal training or seminar on drug identification, relying only on a briefing from his detachment commander. This was deemed insufficient and incompetent to prove the nature of the substance. The Court reiterated that the constitutional presumption of innocence prevails over the presumption of regularity in the performance of official duty when the evidence is insufficient. Without the corpus delicti and its examination, the conviction could not stand. The Solicitor General’s Manifestation and Motion praying for acquittal was granted.