G.R. No. 126516. January 19, 2000.
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, vs. SHIRLEY ALAO y SIMBURYO, accused-appellant.

FACTS

Accused-appellant Shirley Alao was charged with the illegal sale of marijuana following a buy-bust operation on February 24, 1993. NARCOM agents, acting on a tip, conducted surveillance and deployed a civilian agent as a poseur-buyer. The agent met Alao, agreed to purchase one kilo of marijuana for P1,000 in marked bills, and received the bundle. Upon the agent’s signal, arresting officers apprehended Alao and recovered the marked money. A subsequent search, with a barangay official present, yielded eight more kilos of marijuana from a concealed storage area on the premises. Forensic examination confirmed all seized items were marijuana.
Alao denied the charges, claiming the marijuana belonged to her common-law husband, Avelino Rodriguez. She testified that the poseur-buyer had come looking for Rodriguez, who then handed over a plastic bag. She alleged she innocently received the marked money from Rodriguez to buy fish and was unaware of its origin. She contended the search was illegal and that Rodriguez was the one who surrendered the additional marijuana bundles during the search.

ISSUE

The core issue is whether the prosecution proved Alao’s guilt for the illegal sale of marijuana beyond reasonable doubt, and whether the penalty imposed was correct.

RULING

The Supreme Court affirmed the conviction. The Court upheld the trial court’s findings on the credibility of the prosecution witnesses, who were law enforcement officers presumed to have performed their duties regularly in the absence of evidence to the contrary. The detailed and consistent testimonies on the buy-bust operation, the marked money recovery, and the subsequent discovery of more marijuana established the elements of illegal sale. Alao’s denial and claim that the drugs belonged to her common-law husband constituted a weak defense, which could not prevail over the positive identification by the poseur-buyer and the arresting team.
Regarding the penalty, the Court applied the law in effect at the time of the commission of the crime, Republic Act No. 6425, as amended by R.A. No. 7659. The sale involved one kilo (1,000 grams) of marijuana, which far exceeds the 750-gram threshold specified in the law for the imposition of life imprisonment to death. The trial court correctly imposed the penalty of life imprisonment and a fine. The Court found no merit in Alao’s appeal and affirmed the judgment in its entirety.