GR 95352; (January, 1997) (Digest)
G.R. No. 95352, January 28, 1997
People of the Philippines vs. Pedro Pagaura y Ticling
FACTS
Accused-appellant Pedro Pagaura was convicted by the Regional Trial Court for violating the Dangerous Drugs Act. The prosecution alleged that on September 17, 1989, at the Ozamiz City wharf, Pagaura approached two policemen in civilian clothes, requested help securing a ticket, and then voluntarily revealed that his bag contained a kilo of marijuana, which he showed to them. He was subsequently arrested. The defense presented a starkly different version. Pagaura testified that the arresting officers had previously pressured him to act as an informant. On the day in question, they apprehended and searched him, found nothing, but arrested him anyway. The marijuana evidence was later destroyed in a fire at the Hall of Justice.
ISSUE
Whether the guilt of the accused-appellant for illegal possession of marijuana was proven beyond a reasonable doubt.
RULING
The Supreme Court acquitted Pagaura. The Court emphasized that in drug cases, the prosecution must prove guilt with moral certainty, and the presumption of innocence prevails over the presumption of regularity in the performance of official duty. The conflicting narratives created reasonable doubt. The defense’s claim that the officers had motive to fabricate charges due to Pagaura’s refusal to be an informant was plausible and consistent with innocence.
Crucially, the Court found the purported “caught in flagrante delicto” arrest legally untenable. The accused allegedly confessed and presented the contraband to individuals he did not know were policemen. The Court ruled this scenario defied belief and common experience, noting it was highly improbable for a drug courier to spontaneously reveal his crime to strangers. The prosecution’s evidence failed to overcome the constitutional presumption of innocence, as the inculpatory facts admitted of an explanation consistent with the accused’s innocence. Consequently, the evidence did not fulfill the test of moral certainty required for a conviction.