PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE, VS. ROLANDO LATI, ACCUSED-APPELLANT.

People versus Lati

The Case

This is People versus Lati, a criminal appeal from a conviction for selling a prohibited drug under the Dangerous Drugs Act. The accused, Rolando Lati, was charged with selling two aluminum foils of dried marijuana flowering tops to another person without authority of law. The case matters because it is a compact lesson on the hierarchy of presumptions in drug prosecutions: the presumption of regularity in the performance of official duty must yield to the constitutional presumption of innocence, and the failure of the prosecution to present its own poseur-buyer or informer can itself generate an inference that his testimony would have been unfavorable.

Procedural History

An Information dated 12 May 1982 charged the accused before the trial court with violation of Section 4 of Republic Act Number 6425, as amended. Upon arraignment on 21 June 1982, assisted by counsel, he pleaded not guilty. After trial, the trial court rendered a decision dated 12 September 1984 convicting him of the crime charged, sentencing him to life imprisonment and to pay a fine of 20,000 pesos, with subsidiary imprisonment in case of insolvency. The accused appealed directly to the Supreme Court, assigning as errors that the decision was not based on the evidence presented in court and that the prosecution failed to establish his guilt beyond reasonable doubt.

Facts

At about nine o'clock in the evening of 7 May 1982, Sergeant Renato Salvania of the Anti-Narcotics Unit, Eastern Police District, led a team to Rosario, Pasig. In front of the Rosario Church, he marked a 20-peso bill and gave it to Patrolman Romeo Caviso to pose as a buyer of marijuana. Mingling with the crowd, Caviso asked for the whereabouts of a known pusher named Boy Marcelo. He was told by Isidro Estadillo that Boy was in hiding, and Estadillo then said he wanted to smoke marijuana but had no money. Caviso gave the marked bill to Estadillo, who went to the nearby talipapa and handed the money to the accused, who was leaning on a wall in short pants. The accused then handed two rolls of aluminum foil to Estadillo. Caviso gave the pre-arranged signal, and the policemen arrested both men, recovering the marijuana from Estadillo and the marked money from the waistline of the accused. A forensic chemist later confirmed that the two rolls contained marijuana.

The accused told a very different story. At about ten thirty that night he was taking a bath, half naked, near a faucet beside his house along Dr. Sixto Antonio Avenue in Rosario, Pasig. A taxi arrived and two policemen alighted and arrested him without telling him why. He resisted, and Patrolman Caviso held his left arm and forced him into the taxi. At the police station he was maltreated and forced to sign a paper. On the way to the municipal jail, three policemen told him he would be released if he could produce 1,500 pesos. His mother later found him half naked and full of bruises. He met Estadillo for the first time at the provincial jail, where Estadillo apologized for pointing to him.

Flora del Rosario corroborated the accused. She testified that at about ten o'clock that night she saw two policemen in civilian clothes alight from a taxicab and seize a man in swimming trunks, later identified as the accused, who was taking a bath near a faucet, and that the place of arrest was a little bit further away from the talipapa. The trial court gave full faith and credit to the arresting officers, noting that the accused had shown no quarrel or misunderstanding with them that could have motivated false testimony.

Issues

• Whether or not the findings of the trial court on the credibility of witnesses may be disregarded by the Supreme Court in this case.
• Whether or not the prosecution established the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt for the sale of marijuana.
• Whether or not the presumption of regularity in the performance of official duties can prevail over the constitutional presumption of innocence of the accused.

Applicable Provisions

Section 4 of Republic Act Number 6425, as amended, is the provision charged in the Information and under which the accused was convicted below:

The undersigned Assistant Fiscal accuses Rolando Lati y Sudla of the crime of violation of Section 4, Republic Act No. 6425, as amended, committed as follows: That on or about the 7th day of May 1982, in the Municipality of Pasig, Metro Manila, Philippines, and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the above-named accused, without having been authorized by law, did then and there willfully, unlawfully and feloniously sell and deliver to another person two (2) aluminum foils of dried marijuana flowering tops which are prohibited drugs. Contrary to law.

The Information fixes the act charged as an unauthorized sale and delivery of a prohibited drug, so the prosecution had to prove that sale beyond reasonable doubt.

The Court also invokes the constitutional presumption of innocence, which it treats as superior to the presumption of regularity of official functions:

Every circumstance favoring the innocence of the accused must be taken into account and the proof against him must survive the test of reason. Only when the conscience is satisfied that the crime has been committed by the person on the trial should the sentence be one of conviction.

This standard governs the entire review, because the conviction rested on the testimony of the arresting officers alone.

Ruling

On the first issue, the Court acknowledged the settled rule that findings of the trial court on credibility are entitled to great respect, but held that the rule admits exceptions, among them a misapprehension of facts and the drawing of inferences that are manifestly mistaken. Finding such misapprehension here, the Court reviewed the record and set the conviction aside.

On the second issue, the Court found the testimonies of the arresting officers seriously flawed. The entrapment was carried out without prior surveillance and without an informer, and Patrolman Caviso's story that a total stranger approached him to ask for money to buy marijuana was contrived and improbable. The Court also noted important inconsistencies between the testimonies of Sergeant Salvania and Patrolman Caviso on who actually acted as poseur-buyer. Most tellingly, the prosecution failed, for no explained reason, to present Isidro Estadillo, whose identity was known from the beginning, giving rise to the inference that his testimony would not have supported the prosecution. The Court likewise held that the testimony of Flora del Rosario should not have been discarded merely because she was a family friend and a comadre of the accused's parents. Finally, the evidence on the marked 20-peso bill was thoroughly unsatisfactory: only a xerox copy was offered, it bore neither the signature nor the ink dot of Sergeant Salvania, and the police blotter said to contain the serial number was never produced despite a subpoena. The Court concluded that the testimony of Patrolman Caviso was too frail a reed to support the conviction.

On the third issue, the Court held that the presumption of regularity of performance of official functions, taken alone, cannot prevail over the constitutional presumption of innocence. It added that the common practice of using poseur-buyers does not always commend itself as the most reliable way to go after drug violators, as it is susceptible to mistake, harassment, extortion and abuse.

Doctrine

First, the presumption of regularity in the performance of official duty, standing alone, cannot overcome the constitutional presumption of innocence; the prosecution must still prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt. Second, the unexplained failure of the prosecution to present its informer or poseur-buyer, whose identity is known, gives rise to the inference that his testimony would probably not have supported the prosecution's case. Third, the testimony of a family friend or comadre is not for that reason alone flawed; it must be evaluated and given its proper intrinsic weight. Fourth, the burden lies upon the prosecution to prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt, not upon the accused to prove innocence. Fifth, appellate courts may disregard the trial court's credibility findings where there is a misapprehension of facts or where the inferences drawn are manifestly mistaken.

Disposition

The Supreme Court acquitted Rolando Lati for failure of the prosecution to prove his guilt beyond reasonable doubt, reversed the trial court's decision of 12 September 1984, and ordered costs de oficio.

Remember This

Memorize the line that the presumption of regularity of official functions, taken alone, cannot prevail over the constitutional presumption of innocence. Examiners use this case in criminal law and evidence on credibility review, on the weight of a missing poseur-buyer, and on the handling of marked money in buy-bust operations.