PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE, VS. PEDRO ESTILLERO Y ABESA, DEFENDANT-APPELLANT.

People versus Estillero

The Case

This is the People of the Philippines against Pedro Estillero y Abesa, a criminal appeal from a conviction for drug-pushing under the Dangerous Drugs Act. The accused was charged with selling a marijuana cigarette to a police informant in a buy-bust operation at the Naga City public market. The case matters because it is a compact lesson on the constitutional presumption of innocence, on the weight of the presumption that official duty has been regularly performed, and on the fatal consequence of the prosecution's failure to present the poseur-buyer who is the principal witness to the alleged sale.

Procedural History

The accused was arraigned in the Regional Trial Court of Naga City on February 4, 1987, and pleaded not guilty to the charge of drug-pushing. After trial, on April 18, 1988, the trial court rendered judgment finding him guilty beyond reasonable doubt, sentencing him to reclusion perpetua, ordering him to pay a fine of 20,000 pesos, and imposing the costs. The accused appealed directly to the Supreme Court, assigning as errors the trial court's failure to consider that his claim of a frame-up was unrebutted, that the prosecution did not present the poseur-buyer Amelita Catolico, and that the alleged sale took place in the open patio of the public market in full view of many persons and of the apprehending officers.

Facts

A police informant, Amelita Catolico, told the Naga City police that marijuana was being sold at the public market. On January 21, 1987, police lieutenant Tomas Rentoy, officer-in-charge of the Anti-Narcotics Unit, with patrolmen Rodolfo Imperial and Benjamin Navarro, Junior, and policewoman Lorna Fernandez, planned a buy-bust operation. Catolico was to pose as the buyer using marked money of twenty pesos, consisting of two five-peso bills and a ten-peso bill, which the policemen had photocopied beforehand. At about seven thirty in the evening, the policemen stayed beside the Regina Dry Goods Store while Catolico walked to the open patio five to seven meters away, where the accused was loitering. She handed the marked money to him.

When the policemen saw the accused give something in a silver-colored cigarette foil to Catolico, they approached and announced his arrest. The accused ran but was caught. At the police headquarters the marked money was seized from him, and Catolico turned over to Lieutenant Rentoy the marijuana cigarette she said she had bought. Tests at the crime laboratory in Legaspi City confirmed that the confiscated stuff was marijuana weighing approximately three grams.

The accused denied selling a marijuana cigarette to Catolico, whom he did not know personally, and denied receiving twenty pesos from her. He testified that at about seven thirty that evening he was in the open patio waiting for his employer, Ramon Agubang, to pay his daily wage as a carinderia helper, when Patrolman Navarro and other policemen arrived and asked him about the whereabouts of a certain Kilas. When he said he did not know Kilas, he was brought to the police headquarters and jailed, and the policemen threatened to charge him with possession of marijuana if he refused to give the information and promised to set him free if he did. He insisted he did not know Kilas. His employer testified that when he returned to his carinderia at about eight in the evening, he learned that the accused, whose wages he had not yet paid, had been apprehended.

Issues

• Whether or not the prosecution rebutted the accused's testimony that he was the victim of a frame-up by the arresting officers.
• Whether or not the failure of the prosecution to present in court the poseur-buyer, Amelita Catolico, was fatal to its case.
• Whether or not the accused's guilt of drug-pushing was proven beyond reasonable doubt.

Applicable Provisions

Section 5, paragraph e, of Rule 131 of the Rules of Court, on the presumption that evidence wilfully suppressed would be adverse if produced, provides:

A presumption that evidence wilfully suppressed would be adverse if produced.

The Court invokes this presumption against the prosecution for failing to present the poseur-buyer without explanation.

Ruling

On the first issue, the Court held that the accused's denial and his claim of a frame-up were not rebutted by the prosecution, and that the presumption that official duty had been regularly performed cannot prevail over the constitutional presumption of innocence enjoyed by an accused, particularly when the prosecution's evidence is weak.

On the second issue, the Court held that the failure to present the poseur-buyer was fatal. Without her testimony identifying the accused as the supposed drug-pusher, there was no proof that she bought and he sold the marijuana. The prosecution offered no explanation for her absence, and the presumption arose that her evidence would have been adverse if produced. The Court quoted its own doctrine from an earlier case:

The prosecution carries the burden of proof to establish the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt for it is not incumbent upon the accused to disprove his guilt.

On the third issue, the Court found the accused's guilt not proven beyond reasonable doubt. It found it unbelievable that he would sell marijuana openly in the patio of the public market to a complete stranger, and improbable that he would risk spending the rest of his life behind bars for the pittance of twenty pesos. The Solicitor General himself recommended acquittal, and the Court agreed.

Doctrine

The presumption that official duty has been regularly performed cannot prevail over the constitutional presumption of innocence, especially where the prosecution's evidence is weak. The prosecution bears the burden of proving guilt beyond reasonable doubt; it is never incumbent on the accused to disprove his guilt. In a buy-bust operation, the testimony of the poseur-buyer is indispensable to prove the sale, and the prosecution's unexplained failure to present the poseur-buyer gives rise to the presumption under Section 5, paragraph e, of Rule 131 that the suppressed evidence would be adverse if produced. An implausible sale, made openly to a stranger for a pittance, cannot support a conviction.

Disposition

The Supreme Court reversed and set aside the judgment of the trial court and acquitted Pedro Estillero, Junior y Abesa of the crime charged, with costs de oficio.

Remember This

Memorize the line that the presumption of regular performance of official duty cannot prevail over the constitutional presumption of innocence when the prosecution's evidence is weak. Examiners use this case on buy-bust operations to test the indispensable role of the poseur-buyer and the adverse presumption from suppressed evidence.