BURDEN OF PROOF IN CRIMINAL CASE (INSTIGATION) Well established is the rule that when the inculpatory facts and

circumstances are capable of two (2) 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. In the present case, accused-appellant's version of the circumstances leading to his apprehension constitutes a total denial of the prosecution's allegations. In this regard this Court has ruled that when there is such a divergence of accounts . . . it becomes incumbent upon the prosecution to rebut appellant's allegation by presenting . . . the alleged poseur-buyer. This it failed to do giving rise to the presumption that evidence willfully suppressed would be adverse if produced (Rule 131, Sec. 5 [a]). This failure constitutes a fatal flaw in the prosecution's evidence since the so-called (poseur-buyer) who was never presented as a witness . . . is the best witness for the prosecution . . . .

n fine, we find the uncorroborated testimony of the state's star witness Sgt. Alfiler, even if coming from a police officer who enjoys the presumption of regularity, insufficient to induce moral certainty. For, the presumption of regularity of performance of duty of a peace officer cannot prevail over the constitutional presumption of innocence of the accused. The public prosecutor should have been so minded that corroborating evidence was necessary to complete the testimony of Sgt. Alfiler; but no corroborative evidence was submitted. We thus hark back to the constitutional doctrine that the state carries the burden of proof in establishing the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt, and it is not incumbent upon him to disprove his guilt. If the state fails in its burden the accused must be discharged. MARK MONEY As in Enrile, the discovery of marked money on accused-appellant does not mean that he was caught in flagrante delicto of selling marijuana. As correctly pointed out by the Solicitor General, "There is no such crime as illegal possession of marked money". Unless the prosecution is able to prove the connection between the possessor of the marked money and the sale of the prohibited drug, the presumption of innocence of the possessor of the marked money should be upheld. (gr 113028) BUY-BUST WARRANTLESS ARREST Accused-appellant Gaddao was not caught red-handed during the buy-bust operation to give ground for her arrest under Section 5 (a) of Rule 113. She was not committing any crime. Contrary to the finding of the trial court, there was no occasion at all for appellant Gaddao to flee from the policemen to justify her arrest in "hot pursuit." (PP. V DORIA)

ELEMENTS RA 6713 Section 7(d) Solicitation or acceptance of gifts. 1. Offender is Public officials and employees 2. Offender solicit or accept, directly or indirectly, any gift anything of monetary value 3. From any person in the course of the offenders official duties which may be affected by the functions of their office.
ELEMENTS DIRECT BRIBERY

1. the offender is a public officer; 2. the offender receives a gift or present by himself or through another; 3. gift or present be received by the public officer in consideration of the execution of an act which does not constitute a crime, but the act must be unjust, or to refrain from doing something which it is his official duty to do; and [Italics supplied] 4. the act which the offender agrees to perform or which he executes is connected with the performance of his official duties

where the same act or transaction constitutes a violation of two distinct statutory provisions, the test to be applied to determine whether there are two offenses or only one, is whether each provision requires proof of an additional fact which the other does not (Brown v. Ohio)