G.R. No. L-74655. January 20, 1988.
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, vs. CIRILO TARUC y REYES, accused-appellant.

FACTS

The prosecution’s evidence established that on March 6, 1984, in Cabanatuan City, police officers, acting on a tip from an informant, conducted an entrapment operation. Patrolman Liguero posed as a tricycle driver, with the informant as a passenger. Upon reaching the location, the informant conversed with appellant Cirilo Taruc, who later returned and handed two matchboxes to the informant. The informant turned these over to Liguero, who then arrested Taruc. Forensic examination confirmed the contents were marijuana. At the police station, Taruc signed an extrajudicial confession admitting the sale.
The defense presented a starkly different version. Taruc testified that while he was with friends, a person known as “Borta” suddenly placed two matchboxes into his pocket and fled. Police officers arriving shortly thereafter arrested him despite his protests that the items were not his. He claimed his extrajudicial confession was extracted through force, specifically the application of the “water cure.” His testimony was corroborated by a neighbor, Orlando Pineda.

ISSUE

The core issue is whether the prosecution proved the guilt of the accused for the illegal sale of marijuana beyond a reasonable doubt.

RULING

The Supreme Court reversed the conviction and acquitted Taruc. The Court emphasized that while factual findings of the trial court are generally accorded respect, exceptions apply, particularly when the evidence does not support a conviction beyond moral certainty. The Court found the prosecution’s evidence insufficient. The testimony of the apprehending officers was deemed questionable as it failed to detail the crucial transaction itself—specifically, the alleged payment for the marijuana. The marked money supposedly used in the buy-bust was neither presented in evidence nor its handling properly accounted for, creating a significant gap in the narrative of a consummated sale.
Furthermore, the Court gave credence to the defense of frame-up. Taruc’s testimony that a stranger planted the drugs was straightforward and remained unshaken on cross-examination. This account, corroborated by a witness, presented a plausible alternative explanation consistent with innocence. The Court acknowledged the grave threat of the drug trade and the perils of law enforcement but held that the possibility of evidence being planted on unsuspecting individuals necessitates extra vigilance. Where inculpatory facts admit of two explanations—one consistent with guilt and another with innocence—the evidence fails the test of moral certainty required for conviction. Consequently, Taruc’s guilt was not established beyond a reasonable doubt.