G.R. No. 104731 October 27, 1993
People of the Philippines, plaintiff-appellee, vs. Renato Pastores y Avila, defendant-appellant.

FACTS

The accused, Renato Pastores y Avila, was charged with violating the Dangerous Drugs Act ( R.A. No. 6425 ) for allegedly selling 0.65 grams of methamphetamine hydrochloride (shabu) worth P600.00 to a poseur-buyer, Sgt. Cresendo Molina, in Quezon City on July 30, 1991. The prosecution’s evidence, presented through four police witnesses, stated that based on complaints, a buy-bust operation was set up. Sgt. Molina acted as the poseur-buyer, using marked money. The confidential informant introduced Molina to the accused, who then handed over a plastic bag of shabu in exchange for the marked bills. Upon Molina’s signal, other officers arrested the accused and recovered the marked money from him. The substance was later confirmed as shabu by a forensic chemist. The trial court convicted Pastores and sentenced him to life imprisonment and a fine.
The defense presented a different version. Pastores testified that on the evening of July 30, 1991, he was on his way to his sister-in-law’s house when his car was blocked by three vehicles. Armed men, including the prosecution witnesses, forced him out, searched him and his car, and took his money and watch. He was then taken away, blindfolded, maltreated, and detained. His account was corroborated by two eyewitnesses, Mrs. Salud Layag and Mr. Danilo de la Pasion, who testified seeing the accused being accosted and searched by armed men near his parked car without witnessing any drug transaction.

ISSUE

The core issue is whether the prosecution proved the guilt of the accused for the illegal sale of shabu beyond a reasonable doubt, given the irreconcilable conflict between the testimonies of the police officers and the defense witnesses.

RULING

The Supreme Court ACQUITTED accused-appellant Renato Pastores y Avila. The Court found that the prosecution failed to discharge its burden of proving his guilt beyond reasonable doubt. The irreconcilable conflict between the prosecution’s claim of a buy-bust operation and the defense’s claim of a frame-up, supported by corroborating eyewitnesses, created reasonable doubt. The constitutional presumption of innocence prevails over the mere presumption of regularity in the performance of official duty, especially when there are serious allegations of police misconduct. The decision of the trial court dated January 28, 1992, was REVERSED.