Facts:

The case involves Ramil Cabugao y Sison (petitioner) against the People of the Philippines (respondent). The events transpired on March 12, 1999, in Dagupan City, Philippines, where the petitioner was accused of selling shabu (methamphetamine hydrochloride) without the necessary authority, in violation of Article III, Section 15 of Republic Act No. 6425, as amended. The prosecution's case was built on a buy-bust operation conducted by the Dagupan City Police's Task Force Anti-Drug, which had been surveilling the petitioner for fifteen days prior to the operation. During the operation, SPO2 Augusto P. Domingo, acting as the poseur buyer, approached the petitioner, handed him two marked P100 bills, and received a small plastic sachet containing shabu in return. The arrest was made shortly thereafter, with other police officers present at a distance.

The defense presented a different narrative, claiming that no buy-bust operation occurred. Witnesses, including a waitr...

Facts:

Background of the Case

• The petitioner, Ramil Cabugao y Sison, was charged with violating Article III, Section 15 of Republic Act No. 6425 (Dangerous Drugs Act of 1972, as amended) for allegedly selling and delivering shabu (methamphetamine hydrochloride) on March 12, 1999, in Dagupan City.

Prosecution's Version

• The prosecution presented testimonies from SPO2 Augusto Domingo, SPO1 Rolando Lomibao, and forensic chemist Theresa Ann Bugayong-Cid.
• SPO2 Domingo testified that he acted as a poseur buyer in a buy-bust operation after a 15-day surveillance. He claimed to have handed marked money to the petitioner, who then handed over a plastic sachet containing shabu.
• SPO1 Lomibao corroborated Domingo's testimony, stating that he was part of the buy-bust team and witnessed the transaction from a distance of about three meters.
• Forensic chemist Cid confirmed that the substance in the sachet was shabu.

Defense's Version

• The petitioner denied the allegations, claiming that no buy-bust operation occurred. He testified that he was eating at a sidewalk eatery when SPO2 Domingo and SPO1 Lomibao approached him, poked a gun at him, and arrested him without cause.
• Defense witnesses Teresa Azurin (a waitress) and Maria Luz Villamil (a bystander) supported the petitioner's account, stating that they saw the petitioner being arrested without any illegal activity taking place.
• The petitioner also alleged that the police officers had a motive to frame him because he refused to act as their asset in apprehending suspected drug pushers.

Trial Court Decision

• The Regional Trial Court (RTC) convicted the petitioner, sentencing him to six months to four years, two months, and one day of imprisonment. The Court of Appeals affirmed the conviction.

Issue:

1. Whether the trial court erred in giving credence to the inconsistent and incredible testimonies of the prosecution witnesses.
2. Whether the trial court erred in finding that a buy-bust operation occurred.
3. Whether the petitioner's guilt was proven beyond reasonable doubt.

Ruling:

• The Supreme Court granted the petition, reversed the decisions of the lower courts, and acquitted the petitioner. The Court found that the prosecution failed to prove the petitioner's guilt beyond reasonable doubt due to inconsistencies in the testimonies of the prosecution witnesses and the lack of credibility of the evidence presented.

Ratio:

• (Unlock)