G.R. No. 70393 ; April 17, 1990
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, vs. ROLANDO LATI, accused-appellant.

FACTS

The prosecution alleged that on May 7, 1982, in Pasig, Metro Manila, a police entrapment operation was conducted. Patrolman Romeo Caviso, acting as a poseur-buyer, gave a marked twenty-peso bill to Isidro Estadillo. Estadillo then approached the accused, Rolando Lati, gave him the money, and received from Lati two aluminum foils containing dried marijuana flowering tops. Upon Caviso’s signal, Lati and Estadillo were arrested. The marked money was allegedly recovered from Lati’s waistline, and forensic analysis confirmed the substance was marijuana.
The accused presented a starkly different account. He testified that at around 10:30 p.m., while taking a bath near his house wearing only swimming trunks, he was forcibly arrested by policemen without explanation. He was allegedly maltreated, detained, and later asked for money in exchange for his release. He claimed to have met Isidro Estadillo for the first time only in jail, where Estadillo apologized for pointing to him. His testimony was corroborated by Flora del Rosario, an eyewitness to his arrest.

ISSUE

Whether the prosecution proved the guilt of the accused for the illegal sale of marijuana beyond a reasonable doubt.

RULING

The Supreme Court ACQUITTED accused-appellant Rolando Lati. The Court found the prosecution’s evidence insufficient to establish guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. The testimony of Patrolman Caviso was deemed weak and implausible, particularly regarding the alleged sale where the poseur-buyer did not directly transact with the accused but through an intermediary, Estadillo. The Court noted significant inconsistencies and deficiencies in the evidence for the prosecution. The marked money, a critical element, was not properly identified; the presented exhibit was merely a xerox copy that did not bear the alleged markings or the signature of the apprehending officer. This failure cast substantial doubt on the very occurrence of the entrapment.
The constitutional presumption of innocence must prevail. The Court emphasized that the presumption of regularity in the performance of official duty cannot overcome the stronger presumption of innocence, especially in cases involving buy-bust operations which are susceptible to abuse. Every circumstance favoring innocence must be considered, and the proof must survive the test of reason. The prosecution’s evidence failed to induce moral certainty of the appellant’s guilt. Consequently, the decision of the trial court was REVERSED.