G.R. No. 114261 February 10, 2000
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, vs. BERLY FABRO y AZUCENA, accused-appellant.

FACTS

Accused-appellant Berly Fabro, along with her common-law husband Donald Pilay and Irene Martin (at large), was charged with the illegal sale of one kilo of dried marijuana leaves to a poseur-buyer, PO2 Ellonito Apduhan, on April 7, 1993, in Baguio City. The prosecution evidence established that a buy-bust operation was conducted based on a tip from informants. Apduhan, accompanied by the informants, negotiated with Fabro, who agreed to sell marijuana for P600. Fabro left briefly and returned with Martin, handing over a brick of marijuana to Apduhan in exchange for the marked money. Upon Apduhan’s signal, backup operatives moved in, arresting Fabro and Pilay, though Martin escaped. Forensic examination confirmed the substance was marijuana.
The defense presented a starkly different narrative. Fabro denied selling drugs, claiming she was merely cooking when the informants visited. She alleged the informants themselves were carrying the marijuana and that she was framed. She testified that after the informants left her house, police officers suddenly arrived, arrested her and Pilay, and forcibly searched a neighbor’s house.

ISSUE

The core issue is whether the prosecution proved Fabro’s guilt for the illegal sale of dangerous drugs beyond reasonable doubt, overcoming her defense of denial and frame-up.

RULING

The Supreme Court affirmed the conviction. The Court found the prosecution’s evidence, primarily the credible testimony of the poseur-buyer, sufficient to establish all elements of the crime: the identity of the buyer and seller, the object and consideration, and the delivery of the illegal drug. The detailed account of the buy-bust operation, from the negotiation to the exchange and the pre-arranged signal, was consistent and credible. The defense of denial and frame-up was rejected for being unsubstantiated and inherently weak, especially when weighed against the clear and positive identification by the police officers involved in the legitimate operation. The Court also noted that the minor discrepancy in the forensic report’s stated weight (995.5 grams versus the one kilo alleged) was inconsequential, as it did not affect the fact that the substance seized and presented in court was the same marijuana brick sold and was positively identified as such. The integrity of the evidence was preserved through a clear chain of custody. The appeal was denied, and the trial court’s decision was affirmed in toto.