G.R. No. 125310. April 21, 1999.
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, vs. EDGAR LAGMAY y ALARCON, accused-appellant.

FACTS

Accused-appellant Edgar Lagmay was charged with illegal possession of marijuana. The prosecution alleged that on June 7, 1994, during a police checkpoint in Ulas, Davao City, a bag containing 3.2 kilograms of dried marijuana leaves was found on a jeepney where Lagmay was a passenger. Police officers testified that they asked Lagmay about the bag, which was beside his seat, and he denied ownership. He was subsequently asked to alight and was frisked. The bag was opened at the police station, revealing the marijuana.
Lagmay presented a different account. He testified that he was asleep during the trip and was awakened at the checkpoint when an officer tapped his shoulder and inquired about the bag. He consistently denied ownership. He argued that the bag was not in his possession and that the police did not conduct a proper search of the other passengers to ascertain the bag’s true owner. The Regional Trial Court convicted Lagmay and imposed the death penalty, prompting an automatic review by the Supreme Court.

ISSUE

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

RULING

The Supreme Court REVERSED the conviction and ACQUITTED Edgar Lagmay. The Court emphasized that the constitutional presumption of innocence can only be overcome by proof of guilt beyond a reasonable doubt, and the prosecution must rely on the strength of its own evidence, not on the weakness of the defense. In this case, the prosecution failed to establish the element of animus possidendi or conscious possession of the prohibited drugs.
The evidence was insufficient to prove that Lagmay had knowledge of the bag’s contents or exercised dominion and control over it. The bag was found on a public utility jeepney with several other passengers. The police did not ascertain how the bag came to be on the jeepney or conduct a thorough investigation of the other passengers. The prosecution’s narrative did not exclude the reasonable hypothesis that the bag belonged to another passenger. Where the evidence is evenly balanced or capable of explanations consistent with innocence, the presumption of innocence must prevail. The equipoise rule applies, tilting the scales in favor of the accused. The Court held that the prosecution’s evidence did not survive the test of moral certainty required for a conviction, especially one involving the capital penalty.