G.R. No. 131927; September 20, 2000
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, vs. DAVID BANAWOR, MARCOS KANGITIT and LINGLINGON BINWAG, accused. MARCOS KANGITIT, accused-appellant.

FACTS

Accused David Banawor, Marcos Kangitit, and Linglingon Binwag were charged with the illegal sale and delivery of 10.7 kilograms of marijuana. Only Banawor and Kangitit were tried, as Binwag remained at large. The prosecution established that on September 24, 1996, an NBI undercover operative, Cecilio Arimbuyutan, conducted a buy-bust operation. After a prior test-buy, Arimbuyutan, accompanied by Johnny Binomnga, went to Banawor’s residence with marked money to purchase ten kilos of marijuana. Banawor, Kangitit, and another companion were present. After payment, the group loaded the marijuana into Kangitit’s tricycle to transport it to Bagabag, Nueva Vizcaya, with Kangitit driving. NBI agents intercepted the vehicle, arrested Kangitit and Banawor, and confiscated the marijuana, which tested positive.
The defense presented a different narrative. Kangitit claimed he was merely a hired tricycle driver unaware of the illegal cargo. Banawor asserted he was instigated by Arimbuyutan and that the marijuana belonged to Binwag. Defense witness Binomnga testified that Arimbuyutan had solicited him to find marijuana, leading to the transaction with Banawor and others, portraying Arimbuyutan as the instigator. The trial court convicted both accused, sentencing Banawor to reclusion temporal and Kangitit to death.

ISSUE

The core issue is whether the guilt of accused-appellant Marcos Kangitit for the illegal sale and delivery of marijuana was proven beyond reasonable doubt, and whether the penalty imposed was correct.

RULING

The Supreme Court affirmed Kangitit’s conviction but modified the penalty. The Court found the prosecution’s evidence conclusive. The buy-bust operation was legitimate, not instigation. Instigation occurs when law enforcers induce an innocent person to commit a crime, while entrapment involves trapping a culprit already engaged in criminal activity. Here, the NBI acted on prior intelligence, and the transaction proceeded without inducement beyond the opportunity to commit the crime. Kangitit’s active participation was evident; he was present during negotiations, handled the marked money, drove the vehicle transporting the drugs, and attempted to evade arrest. His claim of being a mere driver was implausible given the circumstances and contradicted by other testimony.
Regarding the penalty, the trial court erred in imposing death. For the sale of 750 grams or more of marijuana, Republic Act No. 6425, as amended by R.A. No. 7659, prescribes the penalty of reclusion perpetua to death and a fine ranging from ₱500,000 to ₱10,000,000. Applying Article 63 of the Revised Penal Code, where two indivisible penalties are prescribed and no mitigating or aggravating circumstances attend the crime, the lesser penalty of reclusion perpetua must be imposed. The Court also held that the fine of ₱650,000 imposed on Banawor should be applied to Kangitit in solidum. Thus, the Court modified the decision, sentencing Kangitit to reclusion perpetua and ordering him to pay a fine of ₱650,000 solidarily with Banawor.