The Supreme Court acquitted Angelito Tan, overturning his conviction for drug sale due to reasonable doubt. The Court found significant inconsistencies and irregularities in the prosecution’s evidence, particularly regarding the alleged buy-bust operation. This decision reinforces the principle that the presumption of innocence must be firmly upheld, and that law enforcement’s procedural lapses can undermine the validity of drug-related convictions. It serves as a reminder of the judiciary’s role in scrutinizing evidence and safeguarding individual liberties against potential abuses in anti-narcotics operations.

Dubious Deals: Did a Botched Buy-Bust Steal a Father’s Freedom?

Angelito Tan, a Manila-based businessman, found himself accused of selling illegal drugs, leading to a life-altering conviction. The prosecution claimed Tan was caught in a legitimate buy-bust operation, while Tan insisted he was framed. The Supreme Court grappled with the question of whether the prosecution’s evidence was sufficient to prove Tan’s guilt beyond a reasonable doubt, especially considering the inconsistencies and procedural lapses in the alleged buy-bust operation.

The prosecution’s case hinged on the testimony of police officers who claimed to have conducted a buy-bust operation after receiving a tip about Tan’s alleged drug trafficking activities. According to their account, a confidential informant contacted Tan, arranging for the purchase of 500 grams of shabu. SPO1 Liberato Abalos, acting as the poseur-buyer, allegedly met Tan at the designated location, exchanged money for the drugs, and then arrested him with the help of the back-up team.

However, Tan presented a completely different version of events. He claimed he was with his mistress in La Union on the days leading up to his arrest. On the day of the alleged buy-bust operation, he was at a bank in Manila. He was then apprehended by men who claimed he was driving a carnapped vehicle and was subsequently taken to Camp Bagong Diwa where he was accused of selling shabu and was asked for a hefty sum of money for his release. Tan’s version of the events was corroborated by several witnesses, including his nephew, a bank employee, and other individuals.

The Supreme Court, in its analysis, emphasized the importance of the prosecution proving each element of the crime beyond a reasonable doubt. The Court cited People v. Zheng Bai Hui, 338 SCRA 420 [2000] and People v. Cueno, 298 SCRA 621 [1998], stating that the elements necessary for the illegal sale of shabu are: (1) the identity of the buyer and the seller, the object and the consideration; and (2) the delivery of the thing sold and the payment therefor. Central to the court’s decision was a critical examination of the supposed telephone calls that formed the basis for the buy-bust operation.

The prosecution claimed that SPO1 Abalos and the confidential informant made calls to Tan, arranging the drug transaction. However, the defense presented a certification from the Communications & Electronics (COMMEL) Unit of Camp Bagong Diwa, stating that no commercial telephone line was installed at the Special Operation Group, NARCOM Division, during the relevant period. SPO3 Millan Batalao, Chief Lineman of the Commel Unit, further testified that the telephone line at the K-9 Narcom had been broken since 1993 and had not been repaired.

The Supreme Court found the prosecution’s reliance on Capt. Mabanag’s testimony that the calls were made through a borrowed cellular phone to be dubious. The Court emphasized that Mabanag’s testimony was unsubstantiated and lacked independent corroboration. The Court noted that the prosecution failed to present any phone bill or identify the friend from whom the phone was borrowed. This lack of evidence, coupled with the evidence presented by the defense, cast serious doubt on the credibility of the prosecution’s version of events. The Court noted:

The Court finds such reliance on Mabanag’s testimony dubious and misplaced at best.  It should be pointed out that other than his bare statements to this effect, Mabanag’s testimony is unsubstantiated by any other proof that said phone calls were made.  Indeed, no statement of account issued by the cellular phone company for the month of June was offered to show that the two calls were actually made to accused-appellant’s residence.  Likewise, the prosecution failed to divulge the name of Mabanag’s friend or the cellular phone company.

Building on this point, the Supreme Court also scrutinized the timeline and logistics of the alleged buy-bust operation. The Court noted inconsistencies in the testimonies of the prosecution witnesses regarding the agreed-upon time for the transaction. Some witnesses claimed it was before lunch, while others stated it was after lunch. The Court also found it peculiar that the buy-bust operatives were able to pinpoint Tan’s arrival despite the lack of a specific agreed-upon time.

Further casting doubt on the prosecution’s case was the forensic evidence regarding the ultra-violet powder found on Tan’s hands. Forensic Chemist Leslie Maala’s report indicated that the powder was found not only on Tan’s palms but also on the back of his hands. The Court, citing People v. Tan, 348 SCRA 116, 124 [2001], stated that “certainly, one does not use the back of one’s hands to count money.” The Court also pointed out inconsistencies between Maala’s report and the testimonies of the police officers regarding how Tan handled the money.

The Court also took issue with the fact that only the genuine bills, and not the boodle money, were examined for traces of ultra-violet powder. The Court stated that this fact eloquently corroborated Tan’s testimony that he only handled the genuine bills when they were shoved into his hands by the police officers. Moreover, the Court observed that Tan was examined for traces of ultra-violet powder some ten hours after the alleged transaction. The Court similarly noted that the alleged shabu and buy-bust money were left on top of Capt. Mabanag’s table and it was not until midnight that Lara was sent to the National Bureau of Investigation (NBI) and the shabu was actually submitted therein for examination at 2:00 a.m. of June 28, 1994.

Building on this principle, the Court emphasized that it is a well-entrenched rule in criminal law that the evidence for the prosecution must stand or fall on its own weight, and cannot be allowed to draw strength from the weakness of the defense. Furthermore, the Court held that if inculpatory facts and circumstances are capable of two or more explanations, one of which is consistent with the innocence of the accused and the other consistent with his guilt, then the evidence does not fulfill the test of moral certainty and is not sufficient to support a conviction.

Addressing the argument that the police officers are presumed to have regularly performed their duties, the Court acknowledged the presumption but stated that this presumption cannot preponderate over the presumption of innocence that prevails if not overthrown by proof beyond reasonable doubt. The court stated in People v. Ruiz, G.R. Nos. 135679 and 137375, 10 October 2001:

First, the presumption is precisely just that – a mere presumption.  Once challenged by evidence, as in this case, xxx [it] cannot be regarded as binding truth.  Second, the presumption of regularity in the performance of official functions cannot preponderate over the presumption of innocence that prevails if not overthrown by proof beyond reasonable doubt.”

In conclusion, the Supreme Court found that the prosecution’s evidence was fraught with inconsistencies, contradictions, and procedural irregularities. The Court held that the prosecution failed to prove Tan’s guilt beyond a reasonable doubt, and accordingly, acquitted him of the crime charged. This case serves as a reminder of the importance of upholding the presumption of innocence and ensuring that law enforcement operations are conducted with due regard for constitutional and legal safeguards.

FAQs

What was the key issue in this case?	The key issue was whether the prosecution presented sufficient evidence to prove Angelito Tan’s guilt beyond a reasonable doubt for the crime of selling illegal drugs, considering the inconsistencies and irregularities in the alleged buy-bust operation.
What is a buy-bust operation?	A buy-bust operation is a method employed by law enforcement to apprehend individuals involved in illegal drug activities. It typically involves an undercover officer posing as a buyer to purchase drugs from the suspect, leading to their arrest.
What does “proof beyond a reasonable doubt” mean?	“Proof beyond a reasonable doubt” means that the evidence presented by the prosecution must be so convincing that there is no reasonable doubt in the mind of a prudent person that the accused committed the crime. It is the highest standard of proof in criminal cases.
What inconsistencies did the Supreme Court find in the prosecution’s case?	The Court found inconsistencies in the testimonies of the prosecution witnesses regarding the telephone calls made to arrange the drug transaction, the agreed-upon time for the transaction, and how Angelito Tan handled the money.
Why was the lack of a telephone line in the police office important?	The lack of a telephone line in the police office cast doubt on the prosecution’s claim that the police officers made calls to Angelito Tan to arrange the drug transaction. This discrepancy undermined the credibility of the entire buy-bust operation narrative.
What role did the forensic evidence play in the Supreme Court’s decision?	The forensic evidence regarding the ultra-violet powder on Angelito Tan’s hands contradicted the testimonies of the police officers regarding how Tan handled the money. This discrepancy further weakened the prosecution’s case.
What is the presumption of regularity in the performance of official duty?	The presumption of regularity in the performance of official duty is a legal principle that assumes that public officials, including law enforcement officers, act in accordance with the law and established procedures. However, this presumption can be overturned by evidence to the contrary.
What is the implication of this case for future drug-related cases?	This case highlights the importance of law enforcement agencies adhering to proper procedures and safeguarding individual rights during drug-related operations. It reinforces the principle that the prosecution must prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt, and that inconsistencies and procedural lapses can lead to acquittal.

The Supreme Court’s decision underscores the critical role of the judiciary in protecting individual liberties and ensuring that law enforcement operations are conducted within the bounds of the law. It serves as a reminder that the presumption of innocence is a fundamental right that must be vigorously upheld, even in cases involving serious offenses like drug trafficking.

For inquiries regarding the application of this ruling to specific circumstances, please contact ASG Law through contact or via email at frontdesk@asglawpartners.com.

Disclaimer: This analysis is provided for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. For specific legal guidance tailored to your situation, please consult with a qualified attorney.
Source: People v. Tan, G.R. No. 129376, May 29, 2002