G.R. No. 82737 July 5, 1989
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, vs. AUREO ROJO y GABRIEL, defendant-appellant.

FACTS

The appellant, Aureo Rojo y Gabriel, was charged with violating the Dangerous Drugs Act for allegedly selling a tea bag of marijuana to a police informant during a buy-bust operation on April 15, 1987, in Manila. The prosecution’s case, presented through the testimonies of the arresting police officers, detailed a planned operation. Based on complaints of rampant drug pushing in the area, a team was formed. An informant acted as a poseur-buyer using a marked ten-peso bill. The officers testified that they observed the informant approach the appellant, exchange money for a tea bag, and give a pre-arranged signal, upon which they moved in to arrest Rojo and recover the marked money and alleged marijuana.
The defense presented a starkly different version. Appellant Rojo testified that on the night in question, he was at home when several men, later identified as policemen, arrived. They demanded money and, when he could not produce any, forced him into their vehicle. He was brought to their office, where he was detained and told to produce P20,000.00 for his release. He claimed the drug evidence was fabricated and that the case was filed after he failed to meet the extortion demand. The defense argued he was never caught selling marijuana and that the prosecution failed to present the crucial informant witness.

ISSUE

The core issue is whether the prosecution proved the appellant’s guilt for the illegal sale of marijuana beyond reasonable doubt, particularly in light of the defense of frame-up or instigation and the non-presentation of the informant.

RULING

The Supreme Court REVERSED the conviction and ACQUITTED the appellant. The Court emphasized the necessity of proof beyond reasonable doubt in drug cases, which are susceptible to police abuse such as planting evidence or extortion. The legal logic centered on the credibility and sufficiency of the prosecution’s evidence. The Court found the testimony of the police officers insufficient to overcome the presumption of innocence. Critically, the prosecution did not present the informant, who was the poseur-buyer and the only person alleged to have directly transacted with the appellant. His testimony was deemed vital to corroborate the officers’ claims and establish the actual sale. The officers themselves were not direct participants in the exchange.
Furthermore, the Court found the defense of frame-up and extortion credible under the circumstances. The appellant’s testimony that he was taken from his home and money was demanded from him remained unrefuted. The prosecution’s narrative—that a drug sale occurred in a well-lit street in front of the appellant’s house—was viewed with skepticism, as it was an unlikely venue for such an illicit transaction. The failure to present the informant, coupled with the plausible defense, created reasonable doubt. The Court held that when the evidence for the prosecution is weak and the defense is credible, the scales of justice must tilt in favor of the accused. The decision was ordered furnished to the National Police Commission for possible action regarding the conduct of the involved officers.