GR 108453; (July, 1994) (Digest)
G.R. No. 108453 July 11, 1994
People of the Philippines, plaintiff-appellee, vs. Donald Dismuke y Pamarito, accused-appellant.
FACTS
Accused-appellant Donald Dismuke y Pamarito was charged with violating Section 4, Article II of R.A. No. 6425 , as amended, for allegedly selling two tea bags of marijuana flowering tops to PO2 Nelson Labrador for twenty pesos in Valenzuela, Metro Manila, on February 8, 1992. He pleaded not guilty. The prosecution’s case relied primarily on the testimony of PO3 Nelson Labrador, who claimed that based on an informer’s tip, he conducted a buy-bust operation where he acted as the poseur-buyer. He testified that he gave marked money to the accused, who then gave him two tea bags of marijuana. The defense presented a different version, alleging that the accused was forcibly taken by PO3 Labrador due to a past grudge stemming from a 1990 schoolyard fight between the accused and Labrador’s brother. The defense claimed the marijuana was planted and the charge was fabricated. The trial court found the accused guilty and sentenced him to reclusion perpetua.
ISSUE
The core issue is the credibility of witnesses, specifically whether the prosecution proved the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt for the illegal sale of marijuana.
RULING
The Supreme Court REVERSED the trial court’s decision and ACQUITTED accused-appellant Donald Dismuke y Pamarito on the ground of reasonable doubt. The Court found that the trial court overlooked or misapprehended vital facts and circumstances. Key points included: (1) The accused and PO3 Labrador knew each other from a 1990 incident, providing a possible motive for fabrication; (2) Serious doubts existed regarding the existence of the alleged marked money, as only a photocopy was presented (Exhibit “E”), which was inadmissible under the best evidence rule, and the prosecution failed to present its custodian; (3) The prosecution did not establish an unbroken chain of custody for the seized marijuana, as the forensic chemist received it from an officer not part of the buy-bust team, and the team members did not testify to the handling of the evidence. The prosecution’s evidence was deemed insufficient to overcome the constitutional presumption of innocence. The Court ordered the accused’s immediate release unless detained for another lawful cause.