GR 181541; (August, 2014) (Digest)
G.R. No. 181541 August 18, 2014
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-Appellee, vs. MARISSA MARCELO, Accused-Appellant.
FACTS
An Information was filed charging Marissa Marcelo with violation of Section 5, Article II of Republic Act No. 9165 (Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002) for allegedly selling and delivering 2.3234 grams of methamphetamine hydrochloride (shabu) to poseur-buyer Henry Tarog for ₱1,500.00 at the Visitor’s Inn, Donsol, Sorsogon, on August 1, 2003. The prosecution presented police officers and a barangay chairperson who testified that based on a tip from Tarog, a buy-bust team was formed. Tarog acted as poseur-buyer using marked money. The team witnessed appellant hand over shabu to Tarog and receive the payment. Appellant was arrested, and the seized substance tested positive for shabu. Appellant denied the charges, claiming she was at the location to collect a debt from Tarog and was framed by the police, alleging that the shabu was planted by an officer who was a relative of Tarog’s wife. The Regional Trial Court convicted appellant, sentencing her to life imprisonment and a fine. The Court of Appeals affirmed the conviction.
ISSUE
Whether the Court of Appeals erred in affirming appellant’s conviction for illegal sale of dangerous drugs despite alleged failures in proving the offense beyond reasonable doubt, the warrantless arrest, and reliance on the presumption of regularity in the police officers’ performance of duty.
RULING
The Supreme Court DENIED the appeal and AFFIRMED the conviction with modification regarding parole eligibility. The Court ruled that all elements of illegal sale of shabu were proven: (1) the identities of the buyer and seller, the object, and the consideration were established through the testimonies of the police officers who witnessed the transaction; and (2) the delivery of the shabu and payment were corroborated by the seized item and marked money. The non-presentation of the poseur-buyer, Tarog, was not fatal to the prosecution’s case as his testimony would have been merely corroborative. The warrantless arrest was valid as appellant was caught in flagrante delicto during a buy-bust operation. The defense of frame-up was rejected for lack of clear and convincing evidence, and the presumption of regularity in the performance of official duties by the police officers stood. The Court modified the penalty, stating that appellant, sentenced to life imprisonment, is not eligible for parole.