G.R. No. 181441 November 14, 2008
People of the Philippines, appellee, vs. Larry Lopez, appellant.

FACTS

Appellant Larry Lopez was charged with violations of Sections 5 (sale) and 11 (possession) of Republic Act No. 9165 (Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002). The prosecution’s evidence established that on November 1, 2003, following a report from a barangay official, a buy-bust operation was conducted in Baler, Aurora. PO1 Romeo Miranda acted as poseur-buyer and, accompanied by a confidential agent, arranged to buy shabu from appellant. Appellant agreed to deliver the drugs in front of Ditha’s Hardware. Upon appellant’s arrival, the confidential agent handed marked money to appellant, who in turn handed over a plastic sachet of shabu. Appellant was immediately arrested. A subsequent body search yielded dried marijuana leaves wrapped in cigarette packs. Appellant denied the charges, claiming he was framed while driving his tricycle with passengers. The Regional Trial Court found him guilty, imposing life imprisonment and a fine for the sale of shabu, and fourteen years imprisonment and a fine for possession of marijuana. The Court of Appeals affirmed the decision. Appellant appealed, citing inconsistencies in the prosecution’s testimony regarding a pre-arranged signal and the markings on the buy-bust money, and arguing the warrantless search was illegal.

ISSUE

Whether appellant is guilty beyond reasonable doubt of violation of (1) Section 5, Article II of RA 9165 for the sale of shabu; and (2) Section 11, Article II of RA 9165 for the possession of marijuana.

RULING

The Supreme Court denied the appeal and affirmed the convictions with modification. The prosecution sufficiently established appellant’s guilt beyond reasonable doubt. The alleged inconsistencies in the testimony of PO1 Miranda regarding a pre-arranged signal and the markings on the buy-bust money pertained to trivial matters that did not impair the essential integrity of the evidence. The employment of a pre-arranged signal is not indispensable, and the non-presentation of marked money is not fatal to prosecution. Appellant’s defense of frame-up was unsubstantiated and a mere afterthought. The warrantless arrest was lawful as appellant was caught in flagrante delicto selling shabu during a valid buy-bust operation. Consequently, the subsequent warrantless search incidental to a lawful arrest was valid under Section 12, Rule 126 of the Rules of Court, leading to the admissible recovery of marijuana. The factual findings of the lower courts are conclusive. However, the penalty for possession of marijuana (Criminal Case No. 3189) was modified in accordance with the Indeterminate Sentence Law, imposing an imprisonment of twelve (12) years and one (1) day, as minimum, to twenty (20) years, as maximum, and a fine of P300,000. The penalty for the sale of shabu (life imprisonment and a P500,000 fine) was affirmed.