GR 178544; (February, 2011) (Digest)
G.R. No. 178544 ; February 23, 2011
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Appellee, vs. MANUEL PALOMA y ESPINOSA, Appellant.
FACTS
The accused-appellant, Manuel Paloma y Espinosa, was charged before the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Quezon City with violation of Section 5, Article II of Republic Act No. 9165 (illegal sale of dangerous drugs). The prosecution’s evidence, primarily from PO2 Bernard Amigo, alleged that on April 23, 2003, a buy-bust operation was conducted against Paloma on Pacomara Street, Commonwealth, Quezon City. PO2 Amigo acted as a back-up operative, positioned about 15 meters away. He testified that he saw PO1 Peñalosa and an informant approach Paloma and talk to him. PO1 Peñalosa then gave a pre-arranged hand signal indicating the sale was consummated. PO2 Amigo rushed in, arrested Paloma, and recovered from his pants pocket a plastic sachet containing a white crystalline substance and a marked ₱100 bill. The defense presented a denial and frame-up, claiming Paloma was at home napping with his mother when armed men barged in, arrested him without finding anything, and brought him to the police station. The RTC convicted Paloma, sentencing him to life imprisonment and a fine. The Court of Appeals affirmed the conviction.
ISSUE
Whether the Court of Appeals erred in finding that the prosecution proved beyond reasonable doubt that Paloma sold prohibited drugs to PO1 Peñalosa.
RULING
The Supreme Court GRANTED the petition, REVERSED the decisions of the lower courts, and ACQUITTED Manuel Paloma y Espinosa on the ground of reasonable doubt.
The Court held that the prosecution failed to prove all elements of illegal sale of dangerous drugs. To secure a conviction under Section 5 of R.A. 9165, the prosecution must establish: (a) the identity of the buyer, seller, object, and consideration; and (b) the delivery of the drugs and payment. The evidence must clearly show the details of the transaction to constitute corpus delicti.
Applying the “objective” test from People v. Doria, the prosecution must adequately show the details of the sale: the initial contact, the offer to purchase, the payment, and the delivery of the illegal drug. The testimony of the sole eyewitness, PO2 Amigo, was insufficient. As a back-up operative stationed 15 meters away, he could not hear the conversation between PO1 Peñalosa and Paloma. His testimony only established that they talked and a pre-arranged signal was given. He did not witness the actual exchange of money and drugs. His cross-examination confirmed he acted solely based on the gesture, not because he saw the transaction. The presumption of regularity in the performance of official duty cannot prevail over the constitutional presumption of innocence when the evidence for the prosecution is weak. Consequently, the prosecution failed to prove the elements of the offense beyond reasonable doubt.