PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE, VS. MICHAEL MADARANG Y SANTOS, ACCUSED-APPELLANT.

People versus Madarang

The Case

This is the People of the Philippines against Michael Madarang y Santos, a criminal appeal from a conviction for selling marijuana. Madarang, an eighteen-year-old vocational student, was charged with Cirilo Juan for selling eight hundred grams of dried marijuana leaves with flowering tops to a police officer who posed as a buyer. Juan evaded arrest and was never tried; only Madarang was convicted. The case matters because it is a compact teaching vehicle on entrapment, on conspiracy in the sale of prohibited drugs, on the credibility contest between peace officers and a defense witness, and on the rule that ownership of the drug is not an element of the crime of sale.

Procedural History

Madarang and Juan were charged before the Regional Trial Court of Bauang, La Union, Branch 33, in a criminal case for violation of Section 4, Article II of Republic Act No. 6425, the Dangerous Drugs Act of 1972, as amended. After trial, the court convicted Madarang and sentenced him to life imprisonment and to pay a fine of twenty thousand pesos. Madarang appealed directly to the Supreme Court, assigning as error the trial court's discrediting of the eyewitness Felix Biwang and its finding of guilt beyond reasonable doubt. The Supreme Court affirmed the conviction.

Facts

In the early morning of July 12, 1982, Sergeants Alejandro Basallo and Roberto Viloria of the San Fernando Police Station in La Union received a tip from a civilian informer that drug pushers would be selling about four kilos of dried marijuana in Barangay Bilis, Burgos, La Union. With the permission of his station commander, Basallo formed a combined police and Naval Intelligence Bureau team. They agreed that Viloria would pose as the buyer, Basallo as the driver, and the two intelligence agents as passengers. The team, in civilian clothes, rode a borrowed passenger jeepney to Sitio Gabor. This was their second attempt; an earlier one on June 9 failed when the pushers did not appear.

At about two twenty-five in the afternoon, the informer returned and reported that the dealers were nearby. Two men came down from the mountainside and approached the jeepney: Cirilo Juan, holding a plastic bag, and Michael Madarang. The informer introduced them to Viloria as the buyer. Both boarded the vehicle. Viloria asked the price, and Madarang promptly replied that it was six hundred pesos a kilo and showed one stalk as a sample. Viloria inspected the marijuana wrapped in manila paper inside the plastic bag, tried to bargain, but Madarang insisted on six hundred pesos. Viloria accepted. Instead of paying, he showed his police identification card and identified himself as an officer. The other team members boarded, arrested the two, and confiscated the plastic bag from Juan. A laboratory examination at Camp Dangwa confirmed that the substance was marijuana.

Madarang voluntarily surrendered after a prima facie finding and pleaded not guilty. At trial, he testified that he was sick with influenza and was roused by Juan, whom he had known since childhood, to accompany him. He noticed Juan holding something wrapped in cellophane but was not told what it was. He stayed near a house until Juan waved him into the jeepney, where he sat beside Juan. He heard Viloria ask Juan to open the bag and peered inside but did not know the contents. When Viloria drew his gun and identified himself, Madarang, shocked and afraid, kept silent. He claimed he learned only in detention that he was arrested for illegal possession of marijuana, and he was angry with Juan for involving him. The defense also presented Felix Biwang, a farmer, whose testimony the trial court found replete with incredulities and vacillations.

Issues

• Whether or not the trial court erred in discrediting the eyewitness testimony of Felix Biwang.
• Whether or not the guilt of Madarang for the sale of marijuana was proven beyond reasonable doubt, notwithstanding his claim that he was unaware of the contents of the plastic bag and merely accompanied Juan.
• Whether or not Madarang's imputation of extortion against the arresting officers, and his submissive conduct after arrest, affect the finding of his guilt.

Applicable Provisions

Section 4, Article II of Republic Act No. 6425, as amended, the provision under which Madarang was charged and convicted, provides:

Section 4. Sale, Administration, Delivery, Distribution and Transportation of Prohibited Drugs. — The penalty of life imprisonment to death and a fine ranging from twenty 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 of such transactions. If the victim of the offense is a minor, or should a prohibited drug involved in any offense under this Section be the proximate cause of the death of a victim thereof, the maximum penalty herein provided shall be imposed.

This is the very crime charged, and its text supplies the elements the Court applies: the sale of a prohibited drug without authority, consummated by the mere act of selling or even acting as a broker.

Ruling

On the first issue, the Court held that the trial court correctly rejected Biwang's testimony. It was replete with incredulities and vacillations; he first claimed he had never seen Madarang, then admitted they were neighbors, and he volunteered only at the request of Madarang's mother. By his own admission he was too far away to hear what was said inside the jeepney. At most, his account confirmed that Madarang was with Juan and inside the jeepney when the sale was effected.

On the second issue, the Court gave credence to the clear and positive identification by Viloria and Basallo, who were actually present in the vehicle. It was none other than Madarang who personally fixed the price at six hundred pesos a kilo and stood firm against haggling. His defense of ignorance could not overcome their unequivocal statements. The Court also invoked the presumption that law enforcers regularly performed their duty, absent convincing proof to the contrary.

On the third issue, the Court rejected the imputation of extortion as easily fabricated, citing a similar ruling that the presumption of regular performance of duty was not overthrown. It also noted Madarang's unusually submissive stance: an innocent man would have protested vigorously at arrest, yet he meekly signed a waiver without inquiring why he was detained. Finally, the Court held that ownership of the marijuana was immaterial, because the mere act of selling or acting as a broker consummates the crime.

Doctrine

First, in the sale of prohibited drugs, ownership and possession of the drug are not indispensable elements; the mere act of selling, or even acting as a broker in a sale, consummates the crime under Section 4, Article II of Republic Act No. 6425. Second, a conviction may rest on the positive identification of peace officers who pose as buyers in an entrapment operation, their testimony prevailing over that of a witness too distant to hear the transaction, and their regular performance of duty being presumed absent convincing proof to the contrary. Third, one who negotiates the price of the drug takes a direct and active part in the crime, and conspiracy renders him liable as a co-conspirator.

Disposition

The Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of conviction, holding Madarang guilty beyond reasonable doubt of violating Section 4, Article II of Republic Act No. 6425, as amended.

Remember This

Memorize this line: in the sale of dangerous drugs, ownership is immaterial, and the mere act of selling or brokering a sale consummates the crime. Examiners use this case to test entrapment, the presumption of regularity in police duty, and the rule that a poseur-buyer's positive identification defeats a defense of ignorance.