G.R. No. 82293 July 23, 1992
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff, vs. ROLANDO MADRIAGA y BAUTISTA @ OLAN and ROLANDO PANGILINAN y CRUZ @ OLAN, respondents.

FACTS

Appellants Rolando Madriaga and Rolando Pangilinan were charged with violating Section 4, Article II of the Dangerous Drugs Act ( Republic Act No. 6425 , as amended) for selling and delivering dried marijuana flowering tops to a poseur-buyer, Patrolman Reynaldo Lechido, on March 27, 1987, in Caloocan City. The prosecution’s evidence established that a buy-bust operation was conducted based on a tip from a civilian informant. Pat. Lechido acted as the poseur-buyer and was provided with a marked P10-bill. He approached Madriaga, who matched the informant’s description, and asked to buy marijuana. After receiving the marked money, Madriaga left and returned with the marijuana wrapped in a newspaper. Upon delivery, Lechido gave the pre-arranged signal, and the backup team arrested Madriaga. Madriaga then pointed to Pangilinan as his source. The team apprehended Pangilinan, and the marked money was found in his pants pocket. The seized substance was confirmed to be marijuana by the NBI chemist. The appellants denied the charges, claiming they were framed and arbitrarily arrested while going about their daily activities.

ISSUE

1. Whether the trial court erred in giving credence to the prosecution’s version of events.
2. Whether the trial court erred in not declaring the buy-bust operation illegal.
3. Whether the trial court erred in not acquitting the accused.

RULING

The Supreme Court affirmed the conviction but modified the penalty. The Court found no merit in the appeal.
1. The alleged inconsistencies in the testimonies of the prosecution witnesses (regarding the marking of the buy-bust money and the pre-arranged signal) were minor and did not affect the core narrative of the sale and arrest. The testimonies were consistent on the essential facts of the illicit transaction. The defense of frame-up was unsubstantiated and could not prevail over the positive identification by the police officers.
2. The operation was a valid entrapment, not an instigation. The police merely provided an opportunity for the appellants to commit the crime; they did not induce or persuade them to engage in an illegal act they would not have otherwise committed. The warrantless arrest and search of Pangilinan were lawful as they were incidental to a valid arrest made in flagrante delicto.
3. The prosecution successfully proved the guilt of the appellants beyond reasonable doubt. The evidence clearly established the sale of marijuana and the appellants’ participation. The penalty imposed by the trial court was corrected from “THIRTY (30) YEARS OF life imprisonment” to simply “life imprisonment,” as the law prescribes life imprisonment, not a specific number of years, and it is distinct from reclusion perpetua under the Revised Penal Code.