GR 98362; (November, 1992) (Digest)
G.R. No. 98362 November 13, 1992
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, vs. GEORGE AGUSTIN y POCNO, accused-appellant.
FACTS
On December 20, 1987, in Baguio City, Major Antonio Nañas of the PC Narcotics Command (NARCOM) received information that a certain “George” was selling marijuana. A buy-bust team was formed with Sgt. Oscar Parajas as the poseur-buyer. At the Oro Theater, a civilian informer introduced Sgt. Parajas to accused-appellant George Agustin. Parajas offered to buy P300 worth of marijuana and handed Agustin three one-hundred peso bills. Agustin accepted the money and led Parajas on his motorcycle to San Carlos Heights. Agustin left Parajas at a junction, returned after some time with a pink plastic bag containing marijuana, and handed it to Parajas. Upon Parajas’s pre-arranged signal, Sgt. Godofredo Fider arrested Agustin. A frisk yielded one of the marked bills and more marijuana wrapped in newspaper. The seized items were confirmed to be marijuana by a forensic chemist. Agustin pleaded not guilty, claiming he was framed. He testified that a stranger named “Jun” invited him to drink, repeatedly asked about marijuana, and later, after Agustin accompanied Jun on an errand, they were stopped at a checkpoint where Jun pointed to Agustin as the owner of marijuana found in Jun’s motorcycle. Agustin asserted the operation was instigation, not entrapment, and that the evidence was planted.
ISSUE
1. Whether the trial court erred in rejecting the defense that the marijuana and marked money were “planted” evidence.
2. Whether the trial court erred in not considering the buy-bust operation as instigation and in not acquitting the accused on that absolutory cause.
RULING
The Supreme Court affirmed the conviction with modification. The defense of frame-up was rejected as it was not proven by clear and convincing evidence, and the NARCOM agents, being strangers to Agustin, were presumed to have performed their duties regularly. The Court distinguished entrapment from instigation, holding that the operation was a valid entrapment. The criminal intent originated with Agustin, who was already involved in selling marijuana; the poseur-buyer merely provided the opportunity to commit the crime. The absence of a simultaneous exchange of money and drugs does not invalidate the operation; the consummation of the sale is what matters. The Court found the prosecution proved the illegal sale beyond reasonable doubt. However, the imposition of subsidiary imprisonment for non-payment of the fine was deleted, as the principal penalty of life imprisonment is higher than prision correccional, making subsidiary imprisonment impermissible under Article 39(3) of the Revised Penal Code.