G.R. No. 100354 . May 26, 1995.
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, vs. DIONISIO TADEPA y MERIQUILLO, defendant-appellant.

FACTS

The prosecution’s case stemmed from a buy-bust operation on May 12, 1989, in Ormoc City. Acting on a tip, a team led by Sgt. Luis Alfiler designated Pat. Noel Triste as the poseur-buyer. The team proceeded to a bus terminal where they found the accused, Dionisio Tadepa, asleep inside a jeep. Sgt. Alfiler testified that from a distance of seven to eight meters, he saw Pat. Triste hand marked money to Tadepa but did not hear their conversation. Tadepa briefly left, returned, and handed over 25 sticks of marijuana wrapped in a cigarette pack. After a signal, the team arrested Tadepa and recovered one marked bill. The forensic chemist confirmed the substance was marijuana.
The accused presented a different version. He claimed he was awakened by armed men who gave him a P50-bill and ordered him to give it to a person named “Jojo” at the city stage. He complied, received a package from Jojo, gave it to the men, and went back to sleep. He was later arrested, handcuffed, and accused of peddling marijuana.

ISSUE

Whether the prosecution proved the guilt of the accused for the illegal sale of marijuana beyond reasonable doubt.

RULING

The Supreme Court reversed the conviction and acquitted the accused on the ground of reasonable doubt. The legal logic centered on the insufficiency of the prosecution’s evidence and the fatal failure to present the poseur-buyer. While entrapment is a valid law enforcement method, it must be distinguished from instigation, where the criminal intent originates from the inducer, which would absolve the accused. Here, the accused’s claim of being directed under threat to obtain the drugs from another person raised the specter of instigation.
The Court found the testimony of Sgt. Alfiler, the sole eyewitness for the prosecution, insufficient to engender moral certainty. His distance from the transaction prevented him from hearing the conversation, leaving a critical gap in establishing the nature of the interaction. The prosecution’s failure to present Pat. Triste, the poseur-buyer who was privy to the entire exchange, was deemed fatal. The poseur-buyer is the best witness to prove the illegal sale and to refute claims of instigation. His non-presentation gave rise to the presumption that his testimony would be adverse to the prosecution’s case. The constitutional presumption of innocence prevails over the presumption of regularity in the performance of official duty. The state’s burden to prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt was not met, necessitating acquittal.