G.R. No. L-58635 June 24, 1983
THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, vs. ROMEO VALMORES, CELERINO TORREMOCHA, VICENTE POLO, ROGELIO POLO and CRISTOBAL CASQUEJO, accused, ROMEO VALMORES, CELERINO TORREMOCHA and CRISTOBAL CASQUEJO, defendants-appellants.

FACTS

A police team, led by Cpl. Martin Cabatingan acting undercover, traveled to Bohol following reports of rampant marijuana sales. An informant introduced Cabatingan to appellant Romeo Valmores, who expressed his ability to sell marijuana stored in Talibon. Days later, Valmores informed the team the marijuana had arrived. Cabatingan, accompanied by other officers and an agent posing as a financier, met Valmores and appellant Celerino Torremocha in Talibon. The group proceeded to a nipa hut where Vicente and Rogelio Polo presented a nylon sack containing marijuana. After weighing the contents, Cabatingan and Valmores returned to town to supposedly fetch payment from the financier. Upon Valmores taking hold of a bag containing marked money, Cabatingan gave a pre-arranged signal, leading to Valmores’s arrest. The team then arrested Torremocha and the Polo brothers at the hut and confiscated the marijuana. Subsequent investigation implicated Cristobal Casquejo as the alleged owner.

ISSUE

The core issues were: (1) whether the police conduct constituted illegal instigation or a permissible entrapment; (2) whether the applicable law and penalty were correctly applied; and (3) whether the evidence sufficed to convict appellant Cristobal Casquejo.

RULING

The Supreme Court affirmed the convictions of Valmores and Torremocha but acquitted Casquejo. On the first issue, the Court distinguished between instigation and entrapment. Instigation occurs when law enforcers induce an otherwise innocent person to commit a crime. Entrapment involves ways and means to trap a person already engaged in criminal activity. The record showed Valmores was actively seeking buyers before any police contact. Cabatingan merely pretended to be a buyer and did not induce the criminal plan; he set a trap for an already ongoing illegal trade. Thus, the operation was a legal entrapment.
Regarding the applicable penalty, the crime was committed in November 1980. Presidential Decree No. 1675, which amended the Dangerous Drugs Act and prescribed the penalties of life imprisonment to death and a fine, took effect in February 1980. Therefore, the trial court correctly applied PD 1675. The Court modified the penalty from reclusion perpetua to life imprisonment for Valmores and Torremocha, with a fine of P20,000 each, as the decree specifically prescribes life imprisonment, not reclusion perpetua.
Finally, the evidence against Cristobal Casquejo was deemed insufficient. His alleged ownership was based solely on an extrajudicial statement from another accused, Rogelio Polo, made during the investigation. This hearsay evidence, without corroboration, did not meet the required proof beyond reasonable doubt. Consequently, Casquejo was acquitted.