Case Digest (G.R. No. 181541)
Facts:
People of the Philippines v. Marissa Marcelo, G.R. No. 181541, August 18, 2014, Supreme Court Second Division, Del Castillo, J., writing for the Court. The appeal arose from the Court of Appeals' Decision dated August 31, 2007 (CA‑G.R. CR‑H.C. No. 00858, penned by Associate Justice Rosalinda Asuncion‑Vicente), which affirmed the Regional Trial Court (RTC), Branch 52, Sorsogon City's Judgment dated January 26, 2003 (the RTC Decision is noted in the record as having the 2004 clerical year error) convicting Marissa Marcelo y Madronero (appellant/accused) for violation of Section 5, Article II of Republic Act No. 9165 (The Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002). The plaintiff/appellee is the People of the Philippines.
An Information charging appellant with illegal sale of methamphetamine hydrochloride (shabu) weighing approximately 2.3234 grams was filed on August 4, 2003 in the RTC of Sorsogon City. Appellant pleaded not guilty and trial followed. The prosecution presented police officers who planned and executed a buy‑bust operation (Police Inspector Perfecto Rabulan, PO2 Freddie Salvatierra, Police Inspector Josephine Clemen, PO2 Russan Jimenez) and Barangay Chairperson Elsa Arbitria. They testified that an asset/poseur‑buyer, Imrie (or Henry/Imrie) Tarog, informed police that appellant would bring shabu to his rented unit at Visitors Inn, Donsol; the police organized surveillance and provided Tarog with marked money (P1,500) to act as buyer.
According to the prosecution, on August 1, 2003 the police observed through a slightly opened door the exchange of a plastic sachet of shabu from appellant to Tarog and the marked money from Tarog to appellant; officers then entered, recovered the shabu from Tarog and the marked money from appellant, photographed the scene and brought the seized specimen and appellant to the Crime Laboratory. Forensic testing (Chemistry Report No. D‑321‑03) showed the specimen was methamphetamine hydrochloride weighing 2.3234 grams. The prosecution relied on eyewitness testimony of the arresting officers and the laboratory report.
Appellant testified she merely visited Tarog to collect a debt for pork sold, that police suddenly entered, conducted a body search that yielded nothing on her person, and that PO2 Militante took P900 from her bag. She claimed the shabu was found on the sofa and was planted; she alleged a frame‑up motivated by Tarog's relations with a police officer and by Tarog's indebtedness. Appellant also argued the poseur‑buyer was not presented at trial and that a search warrant should have been obtained after a week of surveillance.
The RTC convicted appellant on January 26, 2003, finding the police witnesses credible, concluding the elements of illegal s...(Subscriber-Only)
Issues:
- Was the failure to present the poseur‑buyer fatal to the prosecution's case?
- Was appellant's warrantless arrest invalid such that the seized evidence should be excluded?
- Did the trial court err in convicting appellant despite the alleged weakness of the defense and in relying on the presumption of regularity in the police off...(Subscriber-Only)
Ruling:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Ratio:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Doctrine:
- (Subscriber-Only)