G.R. No. L-66947 October 24, 1986
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, vs. LAUREANO FERNANDO y CARANE, accused-appellant.

FACTS

Accused Laureano Fernando was convicted by the Regional Trial Court for dope pushing, specifically for selling and delivering forty sticks of marijuana cigarettes to a poseur-buyer, Victoriano Mangrobang, on May 16, 1982, in Quezon City. The prosecution, through police officer Pat. Ernesto Labucay, presented evidence of a planned buy-bust operation where Mangrobang, using a marked P100 bill, purchased the marijuana from the accused. The arrest was made after a pre-arranged signal, and the seized items tested positive for marijuana. The prosecution heavily relied on Mangrobang’s sworn written statement (Exhibit “F”) given during the inquest, wherein he implicated the accused.
During the trial, however, the prosecution’s case unraveled when the poseur-buyer, Victoriano Mangrobang, took the witness stand. He recanted his prior sworn statement, denied having given it voluntarily, and testified that he was intoxicated when he signed the prepared document. Crucially, Mangrobang categorically stated that he did not buy the marijuana from the accused, Laureano Fernando, but from another individual known as “Boy Oxo” who was present at the accused’s place. He maintained that the police had arrested the wrong person. Despite identifying the accused in court, he insisted the accused was not the seller.

ISSUE

Whether the prosecution proved beyond reasonable doubt that accused Laureano Fernando sold and delivered the prohibited marijuana cigarettes.

RULING

The Supreme Court ACQUITTED the accused. The legal logic centers on the prosecution’s failure to meet the burden of proving guilt beyond reasonable doubt. The cornerstone of the prosecution’s case was the testimony and statement of the poseur-buyer, Mangrobang. His complete and unwavering recantation during trial, wherein he exculpated the accused and identified a different seller, created a fatal hiatus in the evidence. The Court found that without Mangrobang’s credible testimony affirming the sale, there was no direct evidence linking the accused to the transaction. The written statement (Exhibit “F”) became unreliable, especially as it referred to a “Marciano” and not the accused, and its voluntariness was contested. The presumption of regularity in the performance of official duty by the police officers could not prevail over the constitutional presumption of innocence. The marked money was not recovered from the accused, and the marijuana was not found in his possession but was received from Mangrobang after the alleged sale. The Court emphasized that the burden of proof lies with the prosecution, and the accused has no duty to disprove the charge. The inconsistencies and the poseur-buyer’s hostile testimony created reasonable doubt, warranting acquittal.