People v. Rojo
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: The Narcotics Control and Investigation Section (NCIS) received complaints of rampant drug-pushing at Barreto St., Pandacan, Manila. An informant identified 'Jay jay', 'Pete', and 'Bong' (appellant Aureo Rojo) as pushers. A buy-bust operation was organized, with an informant as the poseur-buyer and Patrolman Francisco Maniquiz positioned nearby. The operation was to commence upon a signal from the informant after the transaction. The arrest of appellant Aureo Rojo, alias 'Bong', was effected at 12:45 AM on April 15, 1987, for allegedly selling one tea bag of dried flowering tops of marijuana. The marked P10.00 bill used in the operation was recovered from appellant's pocket. Procedural History: The Regional Trial Court of Manila, Branch 15, convicted appellant Aureo Rojo y Gabriel of violation of Section 4, Article II of Republic Act No. 6425, as amended, and sentenced him to suffer the penalty of reclusion perpetua, to pay a fine of P20,000.00, and to pay the costs. The Petition: Appellant appealed the decision, assigning as errors the alleged want of sufficient evidence to establish guilt beyond reasonable doubt and the trial court's disregard of the defense's theory.
Issue(s)
Whether there is sufficient evidence beyond reasonable doubt to convict the appellant for violation of Section 4, Article II of Republic Act No. 6425, as amended. Whether the trial court gravely erred in giving weight and credence to the testimonies of the prosecution witnesses and in disregarding the theory of the defense.
Ruling
The Supreme Court reversed and set aside the decision of the trial court, acquitting appellant Aureo Rojo y Gabriel. Costs were declared de oficio. A copy of the decision was ordered furnished to the National Police Commission (NAPOLCOM) for appropriate action against the involved law enforcement agents.
Ratio Decidendi
On Issue 1: The Court found that the prosecution failed to establish the guilt of the appellant beyond reasonable doubt. A fatal flaw was the contradictory testimonies regarding who acted as the poseur-buyer: Sgt. Carbonel testified that Patrolman Maniquiz was the poseur-buyer, while Patrolman Maniquiz testified that the informant was the poseur-buyer. Furthermore, the alleged informant, who would be the best witness to the transaction, was never presented, and his identity was not revealed. The Court noted that the police officers did not directly witness the alleged delivery of marijuana or the payment, relying solely on a signal from the informant. This lack of direct evidence and the failure to present the informant created doubt as to whether the entrapment even took place. On Issue 2: The Court gave significant weight to the defense's theory of frame-up and attempted extortion. Three witnesses testified that law enforcement agents demanded money for the appellant's release, initially P5,000.00, later reduced to P3,000.00. While the trial court observed that no formal complaint was filed against the policemen, the Supreme Court found it understandable given the circumstances. The Court expressed concern over the evidence tending to show extortion by law enforcement agents and recommended an inquiry into the matter. The Court also highlighted that prohibited drugs can be easily planted by corrupt agents as a means of extortion, necessitating extreme caution in appreciating such defenses, but also vigilance against such practices.
Main Doctrine
The failure to present the informant, who is the best witness in a buy-bust operation, creates doubt as to the consummation of the transaction and the validity of the entrapment, warranting acquittal.