People v. Fernando (G.R. No.

L-66947

24 October 1986)

Facts
Victoriano Mangrobang was a poseur-buyer tasked to conduct a test
buy from someone named Juan Mariano. Mangrobang and his handler
agreed that he was to purchase 50 grams of marijuana, and that once
there is a transaction, Mangrobang shall touch his hair. Patrolman
Labucay posted himself at a place near the house of the accused,
Laureano Fernando. Mangrobang went inside the house and him and
the accused talked. After, the accused handed something to
Mangrobang, then the latter touched his hair. After identifying himself
as a police officer, Labucay confiscated the thing wrapped in paper
from the accused. It contained 40 sticks of marijuana. The accused was
arrested. Both Mangrobang and Labucay gave statements, which the
prosecution relied heavily on.
During the trial, Mangrobang denied having given any statement to the
police and refused to confirm the contents of his alleged written
statement. He claimed that he was merely made to sign a prepared
statement when he was drunk. He also stated that he bought
marijuana from a certain Boy Oxo (who was a guest at the accuseds
house) and not from the accused. He claimed that Labucay arrested
the wrong person.
The Prosecuting Fiscal, who was also the Inquest Fiscal, took the stand
and gave his statement. He claimed that he conducted the inquest
proceeding and that during such proceeding, Mangrobang pointed to
the accused as the one from whom he purchased the marijuana sticks.
The fiscal also claimed that Mangrobang therein confirmed his
statement and affixed his signature in the Fiscals presence. The name
of Boy Oxo was also never mentioned during the inquest.
As for the accuseds version, Fernando claimed that he was at home
when two men rushed towards him, being chased by three policemen.
Mangrobang and Labucay were among the 5 men. The two were
arrested, along with Fernando, despite his claim that he did not know
the two men. Fernando went with the police to the precinct. There, he
was shown a bag and was charged to be the owner thereof.
Mangrobang pointed to him as the seller of the bag, and he denied the
accusation. He presented a certification from their Barangay Captain
stating that he had not been involved in any crime or offense in their
barangay.
The trial court found that there was enough evidence to rule for the
conviction of Fernando for violation of the Dangerous Drugs Act. As the

penalty imposed was life imprisonment,

automatically reviewed the case.

the

Supreme

Court

Issue
Whether the accused is guilty of drug pushing

Held/Ratio: NO
The Supreme Court held that without the statement of Mangrobang,
the conclusion of the Trial Court is not supported by sufficient
evidence. The statement of Patrolman Labucay was overturned by that
of Mangrobangs. The Supreme Court took note of the fact that
Labucay was not made to identify the accused in his statement, while
Mangrobang did in his. It was the latter who was made to identify the
accused in open court but he insisted that it was not from such
accused that he had bought the marijuana from. The SC also pointed
out that in the body search conducted on the accused neither yielded
the marked money used nor the marijuana sticks. It held that there
was thus a hiatus to the evidence that was fatal to a finding of guilt.
As to the written statement signed by Mangrobang, the Supreme Court
said that it was likely that what he signed was a prepared statement as
it was more in consonance with the declarations in Patrolman
Labucays written statement. It was also pointed out that the name
mentioned therein is not that of the Accused but that of a certain
Mariano. The SC thus ruled that the written statement of Mangrobang
is unreliable evidence.
As a last word , the SC said that the disputable presumption that
official duties have been regularly performed must yield to the
constitutional presumption of innocence of an accused. The
fundamental precept that the prosecution carries the burden of proof
to establish the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt was
applied in this case. It is not incumbent upon and accused to disprove
his guilt. In this case, without the testimony of the poseur-buyer,
Mangrobang, there is no convincing evidence pointing to the Accused
as having feloniously sold and delivered to him the 40 sticks of
marijuana cigarettes.
Sir said: In criminal cases, all circumstances favorable to the accused
must be taken into consideration.