G.R. No. L-64867-68 April 17, 1989
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, vs. JAIME GARCIA y LUCIANO and TEODORO MASIBAC y VIDAL, accused-appellants.

FACTS

On September 9, 1982, police conducted a saturation raid in Tondo, Manila, based on reports of drug activity. From a rented room, officers confiscated an olive green traveling bag containing dried marijuana leaves and paraphernalia. The bag was surrendered by Jocelyn Masibac, who stated it belonged to a certain Allan Asunto. Subsequently, appellants Jaime Garcia and Teodorico Masibac were arrested at a nearby store based on an informant’s tip that they were drug pushers. No marijuana was found on their persons during the arrest and search.
At the police station, Loreto Masibac, Jocelyn’s brother, signed a written statement (Exhibit I) alleging that the appellants and Allan Asunto were wrapping marijuana for sale in the neighborhood. However, during trial, Loreto disowned this statement, testifying that he signed it without reading and that many answers were not his but provided by police investigators. The prosecution’s case rested primarily on this statement and the testimony of the apprehending officer and a forensic chemist.

ISSUE

Whether the prosecution proved beyond reasonable doubt that the appellants committed the crime of selling or offering for sale prohibited drugs.

RULING

No. The Supreme Court reversed the conviction and acquitted the appellants. The legal logic centered on the insufficiency and incompetence of the evidence presented. The gravamen of the crime—selling or offering for sale marijuana—was not established. Critically, no marijuana was found on the appellants at arrest, and no witness testified to any actual sale or offer to sell by them. The Court found the testimony of the arresting officer regarding finding leaves on Garcia to be inconsistent and undermined by a disinterested witness.
The written statement of Loreto Masibac (Exhibit I) was improperly relied upon by the trial court. Loreto repudiated it at trial, and since he never testified to those facts on the witness stand, using the statement as evidence violated the rule on res inter alios acta (Section 25, Rule 130, Rules of Court). The statement could not prejudice the appellants as it was an act or declaration of another. It also could not be admitted as a co-conspirator’s admission under Section 27, as there was no showing Loreto was a conspirator or that the statement was made during and in furtherance of a conspiracy.
Furthermore, any alleged verbal admission by Garcia was inadmissible due to the absence of counsel and lack of proof that Miranda warnings were given. The traveling bag containing the drugs was attributed to Allan Asunto, not the appellants. Given the lack of credible, direct evidence linking them to the specific crime charged, or even to the lesser included offense of illegal possession, the constitutional presumption of innocence remained unrebutted. The evidence failed to meet the standard of proof beyond reasonable doubt.