GR 183700; (October, 2014) (Digest)
G.R. No. 183700 , October 13, 2014
People of the Philippines, Plaintiff-Appellee, vs. Pablito Andaya y Reano, Accused-Appellant.
FACTS
Accused-appellant Pablito Andaya y Reano was charged with violating Section 5 of Republic Act No. 9165 for the illegal sale of 0.09 gram of methamphetamine hydrochloride (shabu) on December 16, 2002, in Batangas City. The prosecution’s case was based on a buy-bust operation. A confidential informant (asset) arranged to buy shabu from Andaya. Police officers gave the asset marked money, positioned themselves to observe, and witnessed the asset knock on Andaya’s door, talk to him, give him the money, and receive something from him. Upon the asset’s pre-arranged signal, the officers arrested Andaya, recovered the marked money from him, and the asset turned over the suspected shabu. Forensic examination confirmed the substance was shabu. Andaya denied the charge, claiming police officers arrived at his home, poked a gun at him, searched his house finding nothing, arrested him, and later demanded money for his release, which his wife allegedly paid. The Regional Trial Court convicted Andaya and sentenced him to life imprisonment. The Court of Appeals affirmed the conviction.
ISSUE
Whether the prosecution proved the guilt of the accused-appellant beyond reasonable doubt for the illegal sale of dangerous drugs.
RULING
The Supreme Court REVERSED the decision of the Court of Appeals and ACQUITTED accused-appellant Pablito Andaya y Reano. The Court held that the prosecution failed to prove his guilt beyond reasonable doubt. The non-presentation of the confidential informant, who acted as the poseur-buyer, was fatal to the prosecution’s case. Since the arresting officers did not themselves participate in the transaction but relied on the informant’s signal, his testimony was crucial to establish the fact of sale. The prosecution’s failure to present him or credibly explain his absence, coupled with the lack of evidence that the police officers actually witnessed the transaction, created reasonable doubt. The presumption of regularity in the performance of official duty could not prevail over the constitutional presumption of innocence. The elements of illegal sale of dangerous drugs were not convincingly established.