G.R. Nos. 135679 & 137375; October 10, 2001
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, vs. GODOFREDO RUIZ, JR. y SALAMANCA, accused-appellant.

FACTS

The prosecution’s case stemmed from a buy-bust operation on January 18, 1998, in Fairview, Quezon City. Police officers, acting on complaints of drug activities, designated SPO1 Allan de la Cruz as a poseur-buyer. He was provided with marked money to purchase shabu from accused-appellant Godofredo Ruiz, Jr. The transaction allegedly occurred outside a house on Mustang Street, where Ruiz handed over a plastic bag of shabu in exchange for the marked money. Upon the pre-arranged signal, police operatives moved to arrest Ruiz, who allegedly fled into the house. Inside, the police claimed to have found several individuals engaged in a pot session and recovered from Ruiz a leatherette case containing several more plastic bags of shabu.
The defense presented a starkly different version. Ruiz and his witnesses denied any drug sale, asserting that police officers forcibly entered the house where they were socializing. They testified that the police conducted a search, found nothing illegal, but subsequently planted the shabu and falsely claimed a buy-bust operation had taken place. The defense alleged the operation was a frame-up, capitalizing on Ruiz being the son of a retired police colonel.

ISSUE

The core issue is whether the prosecution successfully proved the guilt of the accused-appellant for the illegal sale and possession of dangerous drugs beyond reasonable doubt, amidst conflicting claims of a legitimate buy-bust operation versus a police frame-up.

RULING

The Supreme Court ACQUITTED accused-appellant Godofredo Ruiz, Jr. The Court found the prosecution’s evidence insufficient to overcome the constitutional presumption of innocence. Critical inconsistencies and procedural lapses eroded the credibility of the police operation. The Court noted major discrepancies between the testimonies of the arresting officers and their joint affidavit regarding central facts, such as who frisked the accused and recovered the marked money and additional shabu. The failure to present the confidential informant, a vital witness to the alleged transaction, further weakened the prosecution’s narrative.
The ruling emphasized that in drug cases, the State carries a heavy burden of proof, and the presumption of regularity in the performance of official duty cannot prevail over the stronger presumption of innocence. The buy-bust operation, as presented, lacked the moral certainty required for a conviction. The inconsistencies, coupled with the defense’s plausible claim of a frame-up, created reasonable doubt. Consequently, the Court reversed the decision of the Regional Trial Court and ordered the immediate release of the accused-appellant, unless lawfully held for another cause.