G.R. No. 85247 July 30, 1993
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, vs. EDWIN MARCELINO, accused-appellant.

FACTS

Accused-appellant Edwin Marcelino was convicted by the Regional Trial Court of Iloilo for violating Section 4, Article II of the Dangerous Drugs Act and sentenced to reclusion perpetua and a fine. The conviction stemmed from a buy-bust operation on January 22, 1987, near the University of San Agustin in Iloilo City. A NARCOM team, based on confidential reports, conducted surveillance. Sgt. Rodrigo Gabasa acted as the poseur-buyer, approached Marcelino, and gave him marked money (a P50 and a P10 bill) for P50 worth of marijuana. Marcelino left, returned with a plastic bag containing marijuana, and handed it to Gabasa. Upon signal, other team members moved in; Marcelino fled upon recognizing Sgt. Benito Bonete, stopped after warning shots, and was arrested. The seized plastic bag was confirmed by forensic examination to contain marijuana. Marcelino denied the charge, claiming he was accosted while going home, mauled, and framed. He was corroborated by an 11-year-old witness, Melvin Hiponia. The trial court found the prosecution’s evidence credible and convicted Marcelino.

ISSUE

Whether the trial court correctly found the guilt of accused-appellant Edwin Marcelino for violating the Dangerous Drugs Act beyond reasonable doubt, based on the factual findings and assessment of witness credibility.

RULING

The Supreme Court AFFIRMED the conviction but MODIFIED the penalty. The Court upheld the trial court’s factual findings and credibility assessments, emphasizing that such matters are best determined by the trial judge who directly observes the witnesses. It rejected Marcelino’s arguments that the transaction was improbable because he did not know the buyer and it occurred in a public place, noting that drug-pushers often sell to strangers and in public areas. The non-presentation of the marked money was not fatal, especially since the marijuana itself was offered as evidence. Marcelino’s prior conviction for drug-pushing, revealed during his testimony, was admissible to prove intent or knowledge. The Court found the defense witness, Hiponia, not credible, noting the improbability that only an 11-year-old boy witnessed the incident in a busy area and the lack of corroborating evidence of the alleged injuries. The prosecution’s evidence was deemed strong enough to overcome the presumption of innocence. However, the penalty was corrected from reclusion perpetua to life imprisonment, as prescribed by the Dangerous Drugs Act, following Administrative Circular No. 6-A-92 which distinguishes between the two penalties.