G.R. No. 82590. July 26, 1990.
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, vs. ESTANISLAO YUTUC y TELLIS, accused-appellant.

FACTS

Accused-appellant Estanislao Yutuc, then 17 years old, was convicted by the Regional Trial Court for violating the Dangerous Drugs Act and sentenced to life imprisonment. The prosecution evidence established that on December 2, 1986, a buy-bust operation was conducted in Bacolor, Pampanga. Sgt. Juanito de la Cruz acted as a poseur-buyer and was introduced to Yutuc by an informant. De la Cruz offered to buy P50.00 worth of marijuana. Yutuc then went to the back of a house, returned with a plastic bag of dried marijuana leaves, and handed it to de la Cruz in exchange for the marked money. Upon the pre-arranged signal, Yutuc was arrested. The forensic chemist confirmed the substance was marijuana.
The defense presented a different account. Yutuc denied selling marijuana and claimed he had no prior criminal record. He testified that on the day in question, he was merely asked by the informant to accompany him to meet a friend. Upon meeting de la Cruz, the latter immediately inquired about marijuana. Yutuc claimed he was merely asked by de la Cruz to look for and procure marijuana for him, which Yutuc did, and for which he was paid P50.00. He argued he was instigated, not entrapped.

ISSUE

Whether the accused-appellant was a victim of instigation, which would bar his conviction, or a legitimate subject of entrapment.

RULING

The Supreme Court reversed the conviction and acquitted Yutuc. The Court meticulously distinguished between entrapment and instigation. Entrapment is a legitimate law enforcement tool where the officer merely employs a ruse to catch a criminal in the act; the criminal intent originates from the accused. Instigation, which is condemnable and a ground for acquittal, occurs when the officer induces an otherwise innocent person to commit a crime he would not have otherwise committed. The criminal intent originates from the instigator.
Applying this distinction, the Court found instigation present. The evidence showed that Sgt. de la Cruz initiated the illegal transaction by proposing to buy marijuana from Yutuc. Crucially, there was no indication Yutuc was engaged in drug trafficking at that moment; he was not in possession of marijuana nor seeking buyers. It was only upon de la Cruz’s offer and instigation that Yutuc procured the drugs. The officer did not catch a criminal in flagrante but instead induced the commission of the offense. This reprehensible conduct of a state agent bars prosecution. Consequently, the evidence failed to establish guilt beyond reasonable doubt, warranting acquittal.