G.R. No. 78681 , August 20, 1990
People of the Philippines, plaintiff-appellee vs. Robert Camarao y Laoyan and Marlene Mariano y Ngaosi, accused-appellants.

FACTS

Accused-appellants Robert Camarao and Marlene Mariano, along with Rodrigo Paragas, Jr., were charged with the attempted sale of marijuana. The prosecution established that a buy-bust operation was conducted by NARCOM agents in Baguio City on October 21, 1985. A confidential informant introduced poseur-buyer A2C Cartel to the appellants. Camarao quoted a price of P700 per kilo for marijuana, and upon Cartel’s order for two kilos, Camarao and Paragas left to retrieve the drugs. They returned with a bag containing marijuana, which was handed to Cartel. Marlene then asked for and received the marked payment, upon which Cartel gave the pre-arranged signal leading to their arrest. Forensic analysis confirmed the substance was marijuana.
The defense presented a different narrative. Camarao initially testified that Marlene was the owner of the marijuana and he merely retrieved it at her request, but later recanted, claiming he was merely hired to carry a bag without knowledge of its contents. Paragas similarly claimed he was just innocently helping. Marlene denied ownership, alleging the drugs belonged to Camarao, and denied any participation in a sale, claiming she was with Camarao to collect a debt.

ISSUE

The primary issue is whether the guilt of the accused-appellants for the attempted sale of marijuana was proven beyond reasonable doubt.

RULING

The Supreme Court affirmed the conviction of Marlene Mariano but acquitted Robert Camarao. The Court found the prosecution’s evidence against Marlene to be credible and conclusive. The testimony of the poseur-buyer clearly detailed her direct participation: she was present during the price negotiation, stayed with the informant while the drugs were retrieved, and personally demanded and received the payment. This active role established her conspiracy in the attempted sale. Her denial and claim of a debt collection motive were deemed unsubstantiated and could not prevail over the positive identification by the arresting officers.
However, the Court acquitted Camarao based on reasonable doubt. The prosecution evidence failed to clearly establish his criminal intent. While he physically carried the bag containing the marijuana, the testimony indicated he was merely following Marlene’s instructions. His act of carrying the bag, without more, did not conclusively prove he was a co-conspirator with full knowledge of the illegal transaction. The Court emphasized that in buy-bust operations, the evidence must convincingly show the accused’s direct participation and criminal intent. For Camarao, the evidence only showed physical possession incidental to being hired as a porter, which was insufficient to sustain a conviction for attempted sale. The decision underscores the principle that while the buy-bust operation is a valid policing tool, the prosecution must still overcome the presumption of innocence with proof of guilt beyond reasonable doubt for each accused.