GR 82263; (June, 1992) (Digest)
G.R. No. 82263 June 26, 1992
THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff, vs. ERNESTO YABUT y TORRES, defendant.
FACTS
An Information was filed against Ernesto Yabut y Torres and Luis Alejandrino (at large) for violating the Dangerous Drugs Act. It alleged that on April 8, 1986, in Valenzuela, Metro Manila, they unlawfully sold and delivered one tea bag of marijuana dried leaves. The prosecution’s evidence, primarily from S/Sgt. Pablito Reyno, stated that a civilian informant reported drug trafficking activities, leading to a buy-bust operation. S/Sgt. Ruben Bazar acted as the poseur-buyer. Reyno, positioned 20 meters away, testified he saw Bazar talk to Alejandrino, who then handed marijuana to Bazar, and Bazar gave a marked ten-peso bill to Yabut. Yabut was arrested, and the marked money was recovered. The forensic chemist confirmed the substance was marijuana. The defense version was that Yabut was merely chatting with Alejandrino when four men arrived looking to buy marijuana; Alejandrino said he had nothing to sell and went inside his house. Yabut was then searched, blindfolded, and brought to Camp Olivas, where he denied any knowledge of the marijuana or receiving money. The Regional Trial Court found Yabut guilty and sentenced him to life imprisonment and a fine. Yabut appealed.
ISSUE
Whether the trial court erred in convicting the accused-appellant based on the prosecution’s evidence, considering the non-presentation of the poseur-buyer, the credibility of the arresting officer’s testimony, and the failure to prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt.
RULING
The Supreme Court REVERSED the trial court’s decision and ACQUITTED Ernesto Yabut y Torres on reasonable doubt. The Court held that the prosecution’s failure to present the poseur-buyer, Sgt. Ruben Bazar, who was the best witness to directly attest to the transaction, was a fatal flaw, giving rise to the presumption that evidence willfully suppressed would be adverse. The testimony of S/Sgt. Reyno was deemed insufficient and doubtful, as he was positioned 20 meters away during late hours with no indication of adequate illumination, making it unlikely he clearly witnessed the alleged exchange. The evidence was capable of two explanations—one consistent with guilt and another with innocence—thus failing the test of moral certainty. The Court also noted the unexplained absence of the co-accused during the arrest as further casting doubt on the prosecution’s version. The Solicitor-General also recommended acquittal.