G.R. No. 84148 June 5, 1989
People of the Philippines, plaintiff-appellee, vs. Pedro Estillero y Abesa, defendant-appellant.

FACTS

The appellant, Pedro Estillero, was charged with violating the Dangerous Drugs Act (Republic Act 6425) for allegedly selling marijuana. The prosecution’s case was based on a “buy-bust” operation conducted by the Naga City police on January 21, 1987. Acting on information from an informant, Amelita Catolico, the police used marked money for Catolico to pose as a buyer. The police testified that at the Naga City public market, Catolico approached Estillero, handed him the marked money, and received a marijuana cigarette in a silver foil. Upon witnessing the exchange, the police moved in to arrest Estillero, who fled but was caught. The seized item was later confirmed to be marijuana.
Estillero presented a different version of events. He denied the sale, claiming he did not know Catolico. He testified that he was at the market waiting for his wages when policemen approached him to inquire about a certain “Kilas.” When he said he did not know the person, he was forcibly taken to the police station, threatened with a drug charge, and framed because he could not provide the information. His employer corroborated that Estillero was apprehended before receiving his pay that evening. Despite this, the Regional Trial Court found him guilty beyond reasonable doubt and sentenced him to reclusion perpetua.

ISSUE

Whether the guilt of the accused for the crime of drug-pushing was proven beyond a reasonable doubt.

RULING

No, the prosecution failed to prove the appellant’s guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. The Supreme Court reversed the conviction and acquitted Estillero. The legal logic centered on the prosecution’s failure to meet its burden of proof. Firstly, the appellant’s denial and claim of being framed were not rebutted. The constitutional presumption of innocence prevails over the presumption of regularity in the performance of official duty, especially when the prosecution’s evidence is weak. The Court found it improbable that the accused would openly sell drugs in a public market patio to a stranger for a mere P20, risking a life sentence.
Secondly, and most critically, the prosecution’s failure to present the poseur-buyer, Amelita Catolico, was fatal. Her testimony was essential to establish the identity of the seller and the fact of the sale itself. Without her, there was no direct evidence linking Estillero to the alleged transaction. The prosecution offered no explanation for her absence, giving rise to the presumption that her testimony would have been adverse if produced. Citing People vs. Fernando, the Court reiterated that the burden of proof lies entirely with the prosecution. Since the core evidence of the buy-bust operation was missing, reasonable doubt existed. The Court agreed with the Solicitor General’s recommendation for acquittal.