G.R. No. 143805 , April 11, 2002
People of the Philippines, plaintiff-appellee, vs. Gerardo Gonzales y Maristañes, accused-appellant.

FACTS

Accused-appellant Gerardo Gonzales, a former police officer separated for being AWOL, was charged with violating Section 15, Article III of R.A. 6425 (Dangerous Drugs Act of 1972) for selling 279.180 grams of methylamphetamine hydrochloride (shabu). The prosecution’s evidence, based on the testimonies of police operatives, established that on January 14, 1999, a confidential informant reported appellant as a “big time” drug pusher. A buy-bust team was formed, with PO3 Rey Lucido as the poseur-buyer. The informant arranged a deal for 300 grams of shabu at appellant’s house. During the transaction at his house, appellant presented the shabu wrapped in newspaper, and upon inspection, PO3 Lucido handed over marked money and boodle money. After the signal, appellant was arrested. The seized substance tested positive for shabu. The defense presented a different version, claiming the police officers forcibly entered his house, searched it, found nothing, mauled him, and then brought him to camp. His wife also testified about an extortion attempt. The Regional Trial Court convicted appellant and sentenced him to death and a fine of Two Million Pesos (₱2,000,000.00).

ISSUE

1. Whether the trial court erred in giving credence to the testimonies of the prosecution witnesses.
2. Whether the act of the confidential informant constituted instigation rather than entrapment.
3. Whether the weight of the shabu was established with certainty.
4. Whether the imposition of the death penalty was proper.

RULING

The Supreme Court AFFIRMED the conviction but MODIFIED the penalty. The Court held:
1. The prosecution successfully established all elements of illegal sale of shabu: the identities of the buyer and seller, the object and consideration, and the delivery and payment. The alleged inconsistencies in the testimonies of the police officers were minor and did not affect the core narrative of the buy-bust operation. The defense of frame-up was not credible.
2. The act of the confidential informant was a valid entrapment, not instigation. Entrapment happens when ways and means are resorted to for the purpose of trapping and capturing lawbreakers in the execution of their criminal plan. Instigation, which is a defense, occurs when the accused is induced to commit a crime he had no intention to commit. Here, the informant merely provided the opportunity for appellant to commit the crime; appellant was already engaged in drug pushing. The police were not required to secure a warrant as the buy-bust operation was a valid form of entrapment.
3. The weight of the shabu (279.180 grams) was established with certainty through the testimony and report of the forensic chemist. The argument regarding the actual weight was without merit.
4. The penalty was modified. For the sale of 200 grams or more of shabu, the law prescribes the penalty of reclusion perpetua to death and a fine. Since the penalty consists of two indivisible penalties and no aggravating or mitigating circumstances attended the crime, the lesser penalty of reclusion perpetua should be imposed pursuant to Article 63 of the Revised Penal Code. The fine of Two Million Pesos (₱2,000,000.00) was affirmed as within the range provided by law. The death sentence was reduced to reclusion perpetua.