PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE, VS. ALFREDO PATOG Y PARAAN AND ARNOLFO OLSIM Y BUSTILLO, DEFENDANTS-APPELLANTS.

People versus Patog

The Case

This is a criminal appeal in which the People of the Philippines prosecuted Alfredo Patog and Arnolfo Olsim for the crime of attempted sale of marijuana, committed in conspiracy with a third accused who remained at large. The accused were caught in a buy-bust operation conducted by officers of the Philippine Constabulary Narcotics Command in Baguio City. The case matters to the Bar candidate because it draws the line between entrapment, which is legal and no bar to conviction, and instigation, which would exonerate the accused; and because it shows how conspiracy in a drug sale may be proved by the mode and manner in which the offense was committed, without direct evidence.

Procedural History

An amended information for attempted sale of marijuana was filed against Alfredo Patog, Arnolfo Olsim, and James Balisong before the Regional Trial Court of Baguio City, Branch Five. Only Patog and Olsim were tried, because Balisong remained at large. The trial court found both accused guilty beyond reasonable doubt, sentenced each to life imprisonment, and ordered each to pay a fine of 20,000 pesos and the costs in proportionate shares. Both accused appealed to the Supreme Court, assigning errors on the appreciation of the evidence, on the existence of conspiracy, and on Olsim's claim that he was instigated by the undercover officer. The appeal reached the Supreme Court as a direct appeal from the regional trial court's judgment of conviction.

Facts

On the twenty-eighth of March, 1984, Sergeant Glenn Logan and Sergeant Pacifico Mugar of the Philippine Constabulary Narcotics Command, together with CIC Charlie Duatin, were formed into a team to entrap marijuana pushers near Carantes Street in Baguio City. Logan would pose as a buyer, while Mugar and Duatin would serve as backup. Accompanied by a civilian informer, the team proceeded to the designated place, where the informer introduced Logan to a certain Boyet, later identified as Arnolfo Olsim, who was reputed to be a broker in the sale of prohibited drugs. Logan asked Olsim if he had marijuana for sale. Olsim said yes and quoted 1,000 pesos per kilo, promising to get a sample from the owner.

At about half past two in the afternoon, Olsim returned and handed Logan a stalk of dried marijuana flowering top wrapped in tin foil. After examining the sample, Logan ordered a kilo. Olsim wanted the payment advanced, but Logan insisted that the owner be brought to him and that he would pay only upon delivery. Olsim left and returned at about twenty minutes past five in the afternoon aboard a Cimarron passenger vehicle with two companions, Alfredo Patog and James Balisong. Balisong was driving, Patog sat beside him, and Olsim was at the back. They parked beside the Baguio Park Hotel and invited Logan into the vehicle. Olsim introduced Patog and Balisong as the owners of the marijuana. Logan asked for the marijuana; Patog pulled out a white plastic shopping bag from his seat and handed it to Logan, while Balisong demanded payment. Instead of paying, Logan gave the prearranged signal, and Mugar and Duatin apprehended the three men.

The contents of the bag were examined at the Philippine Constabulary Crime Laboratory in Camp Dangwa and were determined by Forensic Chemist Carlos Figueroa to be nine-tenths of a kilo of dried marijuana flowering tops. Olsim denied selling marijuana and claimed that an unidentified student, and later Logan himself, had begged him to look for a seller, so that his involvement was due to instigation. Patog claimed he had merely loaned Balisong 300 pesos that same day and had joined him only to collect the debt, unaware of the contents of the bag.

Issues

• Whether or not the trial court erred in giving full faith and credit to the narration of the prosecution witnesses, who were police officers, over the defenses of the accused.
• Whether or not Olsim's participation was the product of instigation by the undercover officer, which would exempt him from criminal liability, rather than of a legitimate entrapment.
• Whether or not Patog's defense of alibi, that he was merely collecting a 300-peso debt, is credible.
• Whether or not the accused conspired to sell marijuana, so as to make each liable for the attempted sale.

Applicable Provisions

Section 4 of Republic Act No. 6425, the Dangerous Drugs Act of 1972, as amended, provides:

Sec. 4. Sale, Administration, Delivery, Distribution and Transportation of Prohibited Drugs. - The penalty of life imprisonment to death and a fine ranging from 20 thousand to thirty thousand pesos, shall be imposed upon any person, who, unless, authorized by law, shall sell, administer, deliver, give away to another, distribute, dispatch in transit or transport any prohibited drug, or shall act as a broker in any such transactions.

This is the offense charged, and it fixes the penalty of life imprisonment to death and a fine for the sale of a prohibited drug or for acting as a broker in such a transaction.

Section 21 of the same Act provides:

Sec. 21. Attempt and Conspiracy. -The same penalty prescribed by this Act for the commission of the offense shall be imposed in case of any attempt or conspiracy to commit the same in the following cases: xxx xxx xxx b) Sale, administration, delivery, distribution and transportation of dangerous drugs;

This provision makes the attempt to sell and the conspiracy to sell punishable with the same penalty as the consummated sale, which is why the accused were convicted of attempted sale and sentenced to life imprisonment.

Ruling

On the first issue, the Court held that the issue was one of credibility of witnesses, and that the findings of the trial court on credibility are accorded the highest degree of respect unless it has plainly overlooked facts of substance that might affect the result. The Court found no such oversight. It gave credence to the narration of the prosecution witnesses, especially because they were police officers presumed to have performed their duties in a regular manner, and because nothing in the records suggested that they were moved by any motive other than to accomplish their mission.

On the second issue, the Court distinguished entrapment from instigation. In entrapment, ways and means are resorted to for the purpose of trapping and capturing the lawbreaker in the execution of his criminal plan; in instigation, the instigator practically induces the would-be defendant into the commission of the offense and himself becomes a co-principal. Entrapment is no bar to prosecution and conviction, while in instigation the defendant must be acquitted. The Court found that Olsim, though he first denied knowing any seller, was able to find one on the very same day, and that he was reputed to be a broker in prohibited drugs and was approached precisely because of that reputation. His claim of instigation therefore had no factual and legal basis, and the mode of detection and arrest was a perfectly legal entrapment.

On the third issue, the Court found Patog's alibi not credible. Patog himself admitted that he and his wife were jobless, save that his wife bought and sold bananas, and the trial court found it hard to believe that he would readily part with 300 pesos, a considerable sum for him, to one who was not even a relative. It was also unnatural for the borrower to burden Patog with following him to the city proper to be repaid, and strange that Balisong would ask Patog to ride at the back when they could have sat together in front. The Court repeated the rule that evidence must not only proceed from the mouth of a credible witness but must be credible in itself, such as common experience can approve as probable under the circumstances.

On the fourth issue, the Court held that conspiracy need not be proved by direct evidence but may be decided from the mode and manner in which the offense was committed. Olsim acted as middleman between Logan and Balisong, and Patog handed the plastic bag of marijuana to Logan. There was no reason for Balisong to ask Patog to give the bag if Patog were merely an innocent passenger, when Balisong could easily have gotten it himself. Conspiracy was therefore established by evidence of intentional participation in the transaction in furtherance of a common design and purpose, and the entire chain of events sustained that finding.

Doctrine

First, entrapment is not a defense; it is a legal mode of detection and arrest, and the entrapped person remains criminally liable. Instigation, on the other hand, induces the commission of the offense and makes the instigator a co-principal, so the induced person must be acquitted. Second, conspiracy may be proved by circumstantial evidence, that is, by the mode and manner in which the offense was committed, and the acts of each participant in furtherance of a common design establish it. Third, findings of the trial court on the credibility of witnesses are entitled to the highest respect, especially where the witnesses are police officers presumed to have performed their duties regularly. Fourth, under Section 21 of Republic Act No. 6425, an attempt or a conspiracy to sell a dangerous drug carries the same penalty as the consummated sale under Section 4.

Disposition

The Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of conviction of both Alfredo Patog and Arnolfo Olsim for attempted sale of marijuana, with the penalty of life imprisonment and a fine of 20,000 pesos each.

Remember This

Memorize the line: entrapment is legal and no bar to conviction, while instigation induces the crime and acquits the accused. Examiners use this case to test the entrapment and instigation distinction and the rule that conspiracy in a drug sale may be proved by the mode and manner in which the offense was committed.