G.R. No. 105005 June 2, 1993
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, vs. JUANITA MARCELO y ANDRADE @ BABY TSINA, accused-appellant.

FACTS

Accused-appellant Juanita Marcelo y Andrade was charged with violation of Section 15, Article III of R.A. No. 6425 (Dangerous Drugs Act), as amended. The prosecution evidence established that prior to April 24, 1991, NARCOM agents received reports that the appellant was engaged in selling shabu. A buy-bust team was organized, with C1C Buenaventura Lopez as the poseur-buyer. On April 24, 1991, at Nagbalon, Marilao, Bulacan, Lopez approached the appellant and one alias Mike. Lopez asked the appellant if she had the “stuff,” and after agreeing on a P100.00 purchase, the appellant gave the stuff to Mike, who then handed it to Lopez. Lopez gave the marked money to the appellant and then gave the pre-arranged signal, leading to the arrest of the appellant and Mike. Upon arrest, the appellant admitted to having more shabu in her possession, leading to the confiscation of an additional plastic bag containing shabu. The seized items were confirmed to be methamphetamine hydrochloride (shabu) upon laboratory examination. The defense presented a different version, claiming the appellant was sleeping at her mother’s house when NARCOM agents arrived, searched the house without a warrant, handcuffed her, and physically assaulted her. She alleged she was forced to sign documents, including a list of confiscated property, without the assistance of counsel and under the promise of release.

ISSUE

The main issues raised by the appellant pertain to the sufficiency of evidence for the illegal drug transaction and the alleged violation of her constitutional rights during the investigation. Specifically, the appeal questions the trial court’s conclusion that there was evidence of an illegal drug transaction and the handling of the case following a reinvestigation and the filing of a new information.

RULING

The Supreme Court affirmed the decision of the Regional Trial Court finding the appellant guilty beyond reasonable doubt of violating Section 15, Article III of R.A. No. 6425 , as amended. The Court held that the testimonies of the prosecution witnesses, who were NARCOM agents, were credible and sufficient to prove the illegal sale and possession of shabu. The defense of denial and frame-up was deemed weak and unsupported by clear and convincing evidence. The Court also ruled that any irregularity in the preliminary investigation or the filing of the information did not affect the court’s jurisdiction and was not raised at the earliest opportunity, thus deemed waived. The appellant’s claim of constitutional rights violation during custodial investigation was irrelevant as the evidence presented was not a product of the investigation but of the buy-bust operation. The Court modified the penalty nomenclature, stating that the penalty should be “life imprisonment” and not “reclusion perpetua,” as prescribed by the Dangerous Drugs Act. The decision was affirmed with this modification.