G.R. No. 126998 . September 14, 1999.
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, vs. JOEL ELLOREG DE LOS SANTOS, GEORGE CASAMIS and FELIPE ELLOREG, accused, JOEL ELLOREG DE LOS SANTOS, appellant.

FACTS

On January 2, 1995, four Informations were filed against appellant Joel Elloreg De los Santos and his cousins George Casamis and Felipe Elloreg. Appellant was charged with illegal possession and sale of marijuana. All accused pleaded not guilty. The prosecution’s version, based on police testimony, states that on December 13, 1994, a buy-bust operation was conducted after a woman named “Linda” reported her live-in partner “Joe” (the appellant) was selling marijuana. SPO1 Gaspar Macatunggal acted as poseur-buyer, bought ten sticks of marijuana for P30.00 from appellant, and gave a pre-arranged signal. Appellant allegedly ran upon seeing the back-up officers, was caught near his house, and the buy-bust money was recovered. Police then allegedly saw co-accused Casamis and Elloreg rolling marijuana inside the house and apprehended them. Confiscated items, upon examination, tested positive for marijuana. The defense version, presented through appellant and his common-law wife Erlinda Napoles, claims that a certain Anthony Alvarez left a bag containing marijuana at their house on December 10, 1994. Appellant refused Alvarez’s request to use their house to sell the drugs. On December 13, 1994, Erlinda reported this to the police. Police officers then went to their house, took the bag and arrested appellant despite his protests, and also arrested Casamis and Elloreg who were merely seated nearby. The Regional Trial Court convicted appellant of illegal possession and sale of marijuana and sentenced him to reclusion perpetua and a fine, while acquitting Casamis and Elloreg.

ISSUE

Whether the prosecution proved the guilt of appellant Joel Elloreg De los Santos for illegal sale and possession of marijuana beyond reasonable doubt.

RULING

No. The Supreme Court reversed the trial court’s decision and acquitted appellant. The Court found the prosecution evidence insufficient to prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt. The testimonies of the prosecution witnesses on material points were inconsistent and contradictory, particularly regarding whether the appellant was arrested inside or outside his house, the location of the alleged sale, and the recovery of the buy-bust money. The defense’s account that the marijuana belonged to Anthony Alvarez and that appellant had no animus possidendi (intent to possess) was credible and consistent. The Court held that where inculpatory facts are capable of two explanations, one consistent with innocence and the other with guilt, the evidence does not fulfill the test of moral certainty and the accused must be acquitted. The constitutional presumption of innocence prevailed.