G.R. No. 92019 September 30, 1991
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, vs. LIBRADO L. ARCEO and PANCHO A. ZAPANTA, accused-appellants.

FACTS

Accused-appellants Librado Arceo and Pancho Zapanta were charged with the sale of marijuana in violation of R.A. 6425. The prosecution evidence established that on August 7, 1987, a buy-bust operation was conducted by a composite team of Filipino and American drug enforcement officers. American Special Agent Bob Reggio acted as the poseur-buyer. Arceo sold Reggio two kilograms of dried marijuana leaves for $200, which Reggio paid with marked bills. Upon the pre-arranged signal, back-up operatives arrested Arceo. Upon interrogation, Arceo allegedly pointed to Zapanta as his supplier. Zapanta was subsequently arrested at Arceo’s apartment. A body search on Zapanta yielded a PT&T telegram stating, “Come tomorrow bring two at Jun’s Apt.”
At trial, Arceo denied the sale, claiming he was arbitrarily arrested and mauled to force a confession. He also denied ownership of the marijuana and knowing Zapanta in relation to drugs. Zapanta, for his part, testified he was in Angeles City to deliver fighting cocks, as indicated by the telegram, and denied any involvement in drug trafficking.

ISSUE

The core issues were whether the prosecution proved the guilt of both accused beyond reasonable doubt.

RULING

The Supreme Court affirmed Arceo’s conviction but acquitted Zapanta. For Arceo, the Court found the testimonies of the poseur-buyer and the back-up operatives clear, consistent, and credible, detailing the two prior test buys and the consummated sale. Their positive identification prevailed over Arceo’s bare denial. The successful buy-bust operation constituted a valid in flagrante arrest, and the seized marijuana was admissible. The penalty of life imprisonment was upheld.
For Zapanta, the Court ruled the evidence insufficient. The sole link was Arceo’s alleged extrajudicial confession pointing to Zapanta as the supplier. This confession was inadmissible as it was obtained in violation of Zapanta’s constitutional right to counsel, having been extracted during custodial investigation without the assistance of counsel. Without this confession, only the ambiguous telegram remained. The word “two” was equivocal and, as Zapanta explained, could refer to fighting cocks. The prosecution failed to present corroborative evidence of Zapanta’s participation. Consequently, the presumption of innocence prevailed, warranting his acquittal.