This case is about the need in cases of illegal sale of prohibited drugs for the prosecution to prove the details of the transaction through someone who saw the sale take place.

The Facts and the Case

The public prosecutor charged the accused Manuel Paloma (Paloma) before the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Quezon City in Criminal Case Q-03-116898 with violation of Section 5, Article II of Republic Act (R.A.) 9165 or the Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002.

At the trial, PO2 Bernard Amigo testified that at about 1:00 p.m. on April 23, 2003 the Batasan Police Station got a tip from an informant that accused Paloma was selling illegal drugs at Pacomara Street in Commonwealth, Quezon City.  The station chief directed PO2 Amigo and PO1 Arnold Peñalosa to conduct a buy-bust operation involving Paloma.  The police officers went to Pacomara Street with the informant and brought with them a P100.00 bill marked with the initials "AP."

When the buy-bust team arrived at Pacomara Street at around 3:15 p.m., they saw Paloma standing beside a man and a woman. PO1 Peñalosa and the informant approached them; PO2 Amigo, the witness, stood as back-up some 15 meters away.  From where he stood, he saw PO1 Peñalosa talking to Paloma.  Momentarily, PO1 Peñalosa waved his hand, signifying that he had made the purchase. On seeing the pre-arranged signal, PO2 Amigo approached and arrested Paloma; PO1 Peñalosa for his part arrested Paloma's companions, later on identified as Noriel Bamba (Bamba) and Angie Grotel (Grotel).  PO2 Amigo recovered from Paloma's pants pocket a plastic sachet with a white crystalline substance and the marked P100.00 bill.

After the police officers informed Paloma, Bamba, and Grotel of their rights during custodial investigation, they brought them to the police station and turned them over to the desk officer.  The arresting officers also turned over the three sachets of suspected shabu that they seized.  According to PO2 Amigo, two of these sachets were those that PO1 Peñalosa bought from Paloma.  The police eventually let Bamba and Grotel go for the reason that the police officers found no illegal drugs in their possession.

In his defense, Paloma denied that such a buy-bust operation took place.  He claimed that at the time of the alleged buy-bust, he was with his 80-year-old mother at their house on Pacomara Street, taking a nap.  Suddenly, five armed men in civilian clothes barged into the house and woke him up.  Two of them held him by the arms while the others searched the house.  Although the men found nothing, they handcuffed him and brought him to the police station.

On June 10, 2005 the RTC found Paloma guilty beyond reasonable doubt in Criminal Case Q-03-116898 of the crime charged and sentenced him to suffer the penalty of life imprisonment and to pay a fine of P500,000.00.

On February 13, 2007 the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. HC CR 01289 affirmed the RTC's ruling in toto.

The Issue Presented

The sole issue in this case is whether or not the CA erred in finding that the prosecution succeeded in proving beyond reasonable doubt that Paloma sold prohibited drugs to PO1 Peñalosa.

The Ruling of the Court

To prove the crime of illegal sale of drugs under Section 5, Article II of R.A. 9165, the prosecution is required to prove (a) the identity of the buyer and the seller as well as the object and consideration of the sale; and (b) the delivery of the thing sold and the payment given for the same.  Further, the prosecution must present in court evidence of corpus delicti.^[1]

Here, the proof of the sale of illegal drugs is wanting.

One.  Under the "objective" test set by the Court in People v. Doria,^[2] the prosecution must clearly and adequately show the details of the purported sale, namely, the initial contact between the poseur-buyer and the pusher, the offer to purchase, the promise or payment of the consideration, and, finally, the accused's delivery of the illegal drug to the buyer, whether the latter be the informant alone or the police officer. This proof is essential to ensure that law-abiding citizens are not unlawfully induced to commit the offense.^[3]

Here, PO2 Amigo's testimony miserably failed to establish the required details of the supposed illegal drug sale.  He testified on direct examination:

Q:	When you, [P]olice [O]fficer Peñalosa and the confidential informant arrived at around 3:15 at Pacomara Street, what happened there?
A:	Upon arrival of that said place Pacomara Street we saw Paloma and one female companion talking with each other.[4]
	x x x x
Q:	Now when Police Officer Peñalosa and the asset approached Paloma where were you at that time?
A:	I was in a hiding place, in a viewing distance.
Q:	Can you see them talking with each other from where you were stationed?
A:	Yes, sir.
Q:	You said earlier Mr. Witness that there were other person[s] other than Paloma, female and male when Police Officer Peñalosa and the confidential informant approached him, where were these two persons?
A:	They were beside each other.
Q:	What were they doing, these two persons at that time when they approached by your companion?
A:	They were just standing.
Q:	When these Peñalosa and confidential informant approached the subject, what happened next?  What transpired next at that time?
A:	While they were talking Peñalosa made the pre-arrange[d] signal.
Q:	What was that signal that Peñalosa did?
A:	By waving his hand.
Q:	Meaning to say?
A:	The buy-bust has already consummated.
Q:	When Peñalosa made that signal what did you do if any?
A:	We rushed up to the area where they were standing.
Q:	When you arrived in that area what happened there?
A:	I grabbed Paloma and made the search.[5] (Emphasis supplied)

All that PO2 Amigo could say was that PO1 Peñalosa and the informant approached Paloma, talked to him, and then PO1 Peñalosa made the pre-arranged signal that the sale had been consummated.  Since he was standing at a great distance during the purported buy-bust, PO2 Amigo could not provide the details of the offer to buy the drug and the acceptance of that offer.  Indeed, he did not see Paloma take money from PO1 Peñalosa nor Peñalosa take delivery of the prohibited substance from Paloma.

The cross-examination of PO2 Amigo does not help. He testified:

Q:	As a back up Mr. Witness you will agree with me that you cannot hear what was the conversation between the informant, Mr. Peñalosa and Mr. Paloma?
A:	Yes, ma'am.
Q:	So you merely acted upon their gesture?
A:	Yes, ma'am.
Q:	So Mr. Witness when you rushed-in to the place where the buy-bust operation was being conducted, you just rushed-in not because you were called upon, but because of the gesture that the same was consummated?
A:	Yes ma'am only the pre-arranged signal.[6] (Emphasis supplied)

While law enforcers enjoy the presumption of regularity in the performance of their duties, this presumption is disputable by contrary proof and cannot prevail over the constitutional right of the accused to be presumed innocent.^[7]  The totality of the evidence presented in this case does not support Paloma's conviction for violation of Section 5, Article II of R.A. 9165, since the prosecution failed to prove beyond reasonable doubt all the elements of the offense.^[8]

WHEREFORE, the Court GRANTS the petition, SETS ASIDE the decision of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. HC CR 01289 dated February 13, 2007 as well as the decision of the Regional Trial Court of Quezon City, Branch 103, in Criminal Case Q-03-116898, and ACQUITS the accused-appellant Manuel Paloma y Espinosa of the crime of which he is charged on the ground of reasonable doubt.  The Court orders his immediate RELEASE from custody unless he is being held for some other lawful cause.

The Court further ORDERS the Director of the Bureau of Corrections to implement this Decision forthwith and to inform this Court, within five (5) days from receipt hereof, of the date appellant was actually released from confinement.  Costs de oficio.

SO ORDERED.

Carpio, Chairperson, Velasco, Jr.,^* Peralta, and Mendoza, JJ., concur.

---

^* Designated as additional member in lieu of Associate Justice Antonio Eduardo B. Nachura, per raffle dated February 23, 2011.

^[1] People v. Serrano, G.R. No. 179038, May 6, 2010, citing People v. Doria, 361 Phil. 595, 641 (1999).

^[2] Id. at 621.

^[3] People v. Pagkalinawan, G.R. No. 184805, March 3, 2010.

^[4] TSN, June 7, 2004, p. 6.

^[5] Id. at 7-8.

^[6] Id. at 19-20.

^[7] People v. Cantalejo, G.R. No. 182790, April 24, 2009, 586 SCRA 777, 788.

^[8] Id.