G.R. No. 81768 ; August 7, 1991
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, vs. ROMEO F. REMOROSA, accused-appellant.

FACTS

Acting on reports of drug pushing in Barangay Pitogo, Makati, police conducted surveillance and identified accused-appellant Romeo Remorosa as a seller. A buy-bust operation was launched on May 21, 1986. Pfc. Henry dela Cruz acted as poseur-buyer. He testified that upon approaching Remorosa, the latter asked, “Pare, iiskor ka ba?” to which he replied affirmatively. He handed over two five-peso bills, and Remorosa delivered one tea bag of marijuana. Upon the pre-arranged signal, other officers arrested Remorosa and recovered the marked money. Forensic examination confirmed the substance was marijuana.
The defense presented a starkly different version. Remorosa claimed he was playing cards at his house when five policemen, including one he knew as Pat. “Henry” Ortiz, arrived asking for his friend Nelson Beato. He accompanied them to Beato’s house, where he saw Beato wrapping marijuana. When Beato attempted to discard it, Remorosa grabbed the marijuana and handed it to the police. He asserted he was framed and that the nineteen tea bags of marijuana presented as evidence actually came from Beato, not from a sale to the poseur-buyer.

ISSUE

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

RULING

The Supreme Court REVERSED the conviction and ACQUITTED Romeo Remorosa. The Court found that the evidence failed to establish guilt with the required moral certainty. Critical inconsistencies eroded the prosecution’s narrative. The poseur-buyer, Pfc. Dela Cruz, testified that only one tea bag was sold during the buy-bust, yet the prosecution presented nineteen tea bags as evidence seized from the appellant. This discrepancy was not adequately explained. Furthermore, the defense’s account was not entirely implausible and found some corroboration in the prosecution’s own evidence, such as the involvement of a person named Nelson Beato and the presence of multiple policemen, one named Ortiz (which could be idem sonans with “Hermie Ortiz” from the prosecution team).
The Court emphasized the need for extra vigilance in drug cases due to the potential for abuse in enforcement operations, such as evidence planting. When inculpatory facts are capable of two explanations—one consistent with guilt and another with innocence—the evidence does not fulfill the test of moral certainty. The prosecution’s evidence, burdened by material inconsistencies and the plausible alternative scenario presented by the defense, failed to overcome the constitutional presumption of innocence. Hence, acquittal on the ground of reasonable doubt was warranted.