G.R. No. 67289 October 5, 1989
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, vs. MACARIO DIAMSAY Y PAGBA, accused-appellant.

FACTS

The accused-appellant, Macario Diamsay, was charged with violating the Dangerous Drugs Act. The prosecution’s case stemmed from a buy-bust operation on February 3, 1983. A police team, acting on a tip, deployed CIC Victor Ibarra as a poseur-buyer near Mayhaligue Street, Manila. Ibarra allegedly handed marked money to Diamsay, who left and returned with twenty sticks of marijuana cigarettes. Upon receiving the items, Ibarra gave a pre-arranged signal, leading to Diamsay’s arrest. The forensic examination confirmed the cigarettes contained marijuana. Diamsay, in an extrajudicial confession, admitted the act but claimed he obtained the marijuana from a certain “Freddie,” to whom he gave the marked money.
The defense presented a starkly different account. Diamsay testified that on the night in question, he was merely buying cigarettes at a store when approached by Ibarra, who persistently asked him to find marijuana. Diamsay claimed he repeatedly refused but was eventually coerced and threatened by Ibarra into locating a supplier. He contacted “Freddie,” obtained the marijuana, and handed it to Ibarra, who then gave him money. Immediately after this exchange, he was arrested. Diamsay asserted he was a victim of instigation, not a willing seller.

ISSUE

Whether the guilt of the accused-appellant for the sale of marijuana has been proven beyond reasonable doubt.

RULING

The Supreme Court ACQUITTED the accused-appellant. The ruling hinged on the constitutional presumption of innocence and the requisite standard of proof beyond reasonable doubt. The Court found the evidence insufficient to overcome this presumption. The case presented a direct conflict between the prosecution’s narrative of a legitimate entrapment and the defense’s claim of instigation, where the accused was allegedly induced by the police to commit a crime he otherwise would not have committed.
The legal logic is clear: when the evidence boils down to the self-serving testimonies of arresting officers against the denial of the accused, and no corroborating evidence conclusively tips the scale, the benefit of the doubt must be resolved in favor of the accused. The Court noted the absence of the marked money on Diamsay’s person and the failure to apprehend the alleged supplier “Freddie,” which left material gaps in the prosecution’s story. While acknowledging the societal menace of drug abuse, the Court emphasized that its duty is to apply the law strictly based on the evidence presented. Since the prosecution failed to establish guilt to a moral certainty, acquittal was the only legally tenable outcome. The marijuana evidence was ordered surrendered to the proper authorities for destruction.