G.R. No. 171310 ; July 9, 2008
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Appellee, vs. SANNY CABACABA y GAYOSO, Appellant.

FACTS

The prosecution’s case stemmed from a buy-bust operation on October 18, 2002. Based on an informant’s tip, a police team was formed with PO2 Jaime Ocampo as the poseur-buyer. Ocampo, using marked money, allegedly bought two sachets of shabu worth PHP 300 from appellant Sanny Cabacaba at a specified address in Quezon City. Upon consummation of the sale, Ocampo gave a pre-arranged signal, leading to appellant’s arrest. The marked bills were recovered from appellant during a body search.
Appellant presented a starkly different version. He claimed he was attending a child’s birthday party at a neighbor’s house when armed men, later identified as police officers, entered and searched the premises. He denied any drug transaction, asserting that the police planted evidence and later demanded money for their release. Defense witness Conrado de Guzman corroborated this account, testifying he was forcibly brought to the scene and saw the police search the house and arrest the occupants without witnessing any buy-bust.

ISSUE

The core issue is whether the prosecution proved appellant’s guilt for illegal sale of dangerous drugs beyond reasonable doubt, amidst conflicting narratives from the police and the defense regarding the legitimacy of the buy-bust operation.

RULING

The Supreme Court affirmed the conviction. The Court emphasized that in prosecutions for illegal sale of drugs, the essential elements are: (1) the identity of the buyer, seller, object, and consideration; and (2) the delivery of the illicit drug and the payment. The prosecution successfully established these elements through the clear, positive, and consistent testimony of PO2 Ocampo, who acted as the poseur-buyer. His testimony detailed the transaction and the recovery of the marked money from appellant.
The Court found the defense of frame-up and denial inherently weak. It upheld the trial court’s assessment, which found the police testimony credible and the defense story improbable. The trial court noted significant inconsistencies, such as the absence of any corroboration about the alleged birthday party from other neighbors or the supposed husband of the homeowner. The marked money’s recovery from appellant’s person further bolstered the prosecution’s narrative. The Court ruled that the positive identification by the police, who are presumed to have performed their duties regularly in the absence of evidence to the contrary, prevailed over the unsubstantiated claims of the defense. Thus, appellant’s guilt was proven beyond reasonable doubt.