GR 95542; (June, 1992) (Digest)
G.R. No. 95542 June 26, 1992
People of the Philippines, plaintiff-appellee, vs. Teresita del Mar alias “Tata” alias “Eulanie” and Edison Sanchez y Sullivan, accused-appellants.
FACTS
Accused-appellants Teresita del Mar and Edison Sanchez were charged with violating the Dangerous Drugs Act of 1972 (RA 6425) for allegedly selling and delivering approximately one gram of methylamphetamine hydrochloride (shabu) without legal authority in Cebu City on October 27, 1989. The prosecution’s case relied on a buy-bust operation conducted by the 7th Narcotics Regional Unit. Posing as buyers, Sgts. Alejandro Binan and Mohamad Said allegedly purchased shabu from del Mar in Room 526 of Sundowners Hotel for P1,200 in marked money, with Sanchez handing the shabu to Said. After the sale, the NARCOM agents arrested the appellants and claimed to have recovered drug paraphernalia, a list of customers, and P36,000 from del Mar’s clutch bag. The seized substance tested positive for methylamphetamine. The defense presented a different version: del Mar testified that Sanchez was visiting her to deliver money to her father when the NARCOM agents arrived. She denied selling shabu, claiming the agents found nothing during their initial visit but later planted evidence, including the shabu and the list of customers. She explained the P36,000 as savings from her work as a dancer and support from boyfriends. Sanchez corroborated her testimony.
ISSUE
Whether the prosecution proved beyond reasonable doubt that accused-appellants Teresita del Mar and Edison Sanchez are guilty of illegally selling a regulated drug.
RULING
The Supreme Court REVERSED and SET ASIDE the trial court’s decision and ACQUITTED both appellants. The Court found the prosecution’s evidence insufficient to meet the required standard of proof beyond reasonable doubt. It noted improbabilities and inconsistencies in the prosecution’s narrative, such as the failure to include the seized shabu and marked money in the certification of confiscated items, the lack of investigation into the handwriting on the alleged list of customers, and the unwarranted seizure of the P36,000 based merely on a presumption about del Mar’s livelihood. The defense’s explanation for the possession of the money was deemed credible. The Court emphasized that every circumstance favoring innocence must be considered and that moral certainty of guilt was not established.