GR 133990; (June, 2001) (Digest)
G.R. No. 133990 , June 26, 2001
People of the Philippines, plaintiff-appellee, vs. Hector Mariano y Tengco, accused-appellant.
FACTS
On August 10, 1995, a buy-bust operation was conducted against Oscar Sanga for selling shabu. P/Sr. Insp. Joselito M. Daniel acted as the poseur-buyer. After the transaction, the team rushed in. P/Sr. Insp. Daniel and PO2 Francisco T. Duran apprehended Sanga. SPO2 Ruben T. Manibo checked on the driver of the car, accused-appellant Hector Mariano y Tengco. SPO2 Manibo confiscated a black belt bag from Mariano, which allegedly contained five small plastic bags of shabu weighing 342.4 grams. Mariano was arrested and charged with illegal possession of a regulated drug. SPO2 Manibo was killed before he could testify. At trial, P/Sr. Insp. Daniel testified he had no participation in frisking Mariano and no knowledge if the shabu was found in his possession. PO2 Duran testified that SPO2 Manibo recovered the plastic bags from the belt bag Mariano was wearing. During cross-examination, when asked to wear the belt bag, it did not fit Mariano’s waistline. The defense filed a demurrer to evidence, which was denied. The trial court convicted Mariano of possession and sentenced him to life imprisonment.
ISSUE
Whether the prosecution proved beyond reasonable doubt that accused-appellant Hector Mariano was in possession of the 342.4 grams of shabu.
RULING
No. The Supreme Court reversed the trial court’s decision and acquitted accused-appellant Hector Mariano. The prosecution failed to prove the element of possession beyond reasonable doubt. The testimony of PO2 Duran was vague and insufficient to establish that the shabu was found in the belt bag worn by and in the possession of Mariano. PO2 Duran testified he saw plastic bags inside the belt bag while it was still tied around Mariano’s waist from a distance of three feet, but he could not tell if the plastic bags contained anything. The Court held that where the inculpatory facts admit of interpretations both consistent with innocence and guilt, the evidence fails to meet the test of moral certainty required for conviction. The presumption of innocence was not overcome.