G.R. No. 189325 ; June 15, 2011
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-Appellee, vs. TEOFILO RAGODON MARCELINO, JR. alias “Terence” and alias TEOFILO MARCELINO y RAGODON, Accused-Appellant.

FACTS

An Information was filed accusing Teofilo Marcelino, Jr. of violating Section 5, Article II of R.A. 9165 for selling, delivering, and giving away one heat-sealed plastic sachet containing 0.14 gram of methylamphetamine hydrochloride (shabu) to PO2 Peter V. Sistemio, a police poseur-buyer, on September 18, 2004, in Pasig City. The accused pleaded not guilty.
The prosecution’s version, based on the testimonies of PDEA agents, is as follows: On September 18, 2004, a confidential informant reported the illegal drug activities of alias “Terence” and arranged a buy-bust operation. A team was formed with PO2 Sistemio as the poseur-buyer. A marked PhP 100 bill was provided. The team proceeded to McDonald’s in San Joaquin, Pasig City. The accused arrived, was introduced to PO2 Sistemio as an interested buyer, and offered to buy PhP 1,000 worth of shabu. The accused then produced a heat-sealed plastic sachet of white crystalline substance. PO2 Sistemio handed over the marked money, gave the pre-arranged signal, arrested the accused, and recovered the marked money from his pocket. The seized sachet was marked, turned over to the team leader, and later submitted to the crime laboratory, where it tested positive for shabu.
The defense interposed denial. The accused testified that he was with his sisters in a market area when he was approached by two persons, handcuffed, forced into a vehicle, and frisked, with something placed in his pocket. He was brought to the PDEA office, forced to admit he was “Terence,” and made to sign documents. Defense witness Nelson Derilo, a cigarette vendor, testified to seeing a commotion where a man was pulled by two persons in front of McDonald’s and taken away in a vehicle.

ISSUE

Whether the Court of Appeals erred in affirming the trial court’s conviction of the accused-appellant for violation of Section 5, Article II of R.A. 9165, despite alleged inconsistencies in the testimonies of the prosecution witnesses and the defense of denial.

RULING

The Supreme Court denied the appeal and affirmed the conviction. The Court held that the prosecution successfully established all elements of illegal sale of dangerous drugs: (1) the identity of the buyer and seller, the object, and the consideration; and (2) the delivery of the thing sold and the payment. The testimonies of the prosecution witnesses were credible and consistent on the material points of the buy-bust operation. The alleged inconsistencies cited by the accused-appellant (regarding the number of team members, the informant’s movements, the initial approach, and the custody of the drug after seizure) pertained to minor details that did not affect the core narrative of the sale. The positive identification by the police officers prevailed over the accused’s bare denial, which is inherently weak. The chain of custody of the seized drug was also preserved, as it was immediately marked, turned over to the investigating officer, and submitted for laboratory examination on the same day, with its integrity established. The defense of frame-up was not substantiated by clear and convincing evidence. Therefore, the guilt of the accused-appellant was proven beyond reasonable doubt. The penalty of life imprisonment and a fine of Five Hundred Thousand Pesos (PhP 500,000.00) imposed by the trial court was affirmed.