G.R. No. 83888 June 30, 1989
THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, vs. JOSE QUINTANA y CALIMAG and JOHN DOE, accused-appellants.

FACTS

The accused, Jose Quintana, was convicted for violating the Dangerous Drugs Act for allegedly selling 100 grams of dried marijuana leaves. The prosecution’s case rested on a buy-bust operation conducted by NARCOM agents in Bacoor, Cavite. The agents testified that after receiving a tip, they arranged a transaction where Quintana sold the marijuana to an undercover agent for a marked P100 bill. Upon a pre-arranged signal, Quintana was arrested, and the marijuana and marked money were confiscated. The seized items were later examined by the NBI.
Quintana presented a starkly different version. He denied being a drug pusher and claimed the buy-bust never occurred. He testified that he was merely a bystander when the agents, who were chasing other individuals, suddenly grabbed him, falsely accused him of owning marijuana, and took him into custody. He alleged he was forced to sign blank documents, including a receipt for the marijuana, and that an agent demanded P6,000 for his release. His testimony was corroborated by a fellow tricycle driver and a barangay certification attesting to his good character.

ISSUE

Whether the guilt of the accused-appellant, Jose Quintana, was proven beyond a reasonable doubt.

RULING

The Supreme Court reversed the conviction and acquitted Quintana. The Court found the evidence for the prosecution insufficient and fraught with doubt. Crucially, the testimonies of the arresting officers revealed that the agent did not act as a buyer but instead requested Quintana to buy marijuana for him. This constituted instigation, not permissible entrapment. In instigation, the law enforcer induces an otherwise innocent person to commit a crime, thereby becoming a co-principal and vitiating the accused’s criminal liability. The trial court erroneously dismissed this defense.
Furthermore, the physical evidence was inconsistent. The agents claimed to have seized 100 grams of marijuana, but the NBI forensic report stated the specimen weighed only 80 grams, a significant discrepancy unexplained by the prosecution. The Court also noted that the receipt for the marijuana was signed by Quintana in blank while in custody without counsel, rendering it inadmissible as obtained in violation of his constitutional rights during custodial investigation. The Solicitor General himself joined the defense in seeking acquittal on grounds of reasonable doubt. The Court emphasized that while the campaign against drugs is vital, the constitutional presumption of innocence must prevail over the presumption of regularity in official duties when evidence is weak and contradictory.