G.R. No. 92534 ; July 9, 1991
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, vs. ESMENIO DE LA PEÑA y BEDRIO, accused-appellant.

FACTS

Accused-appellant Esmenio de la Peña was convicted of selling marijuana and sentenced to reclusion perpetua. The prosecution evidence, primarily from Sgt. Francisco Allaga, established that a buy-bust operation was conducted on March 24, 1988, in Iloilo City. Acting as a poseur-buyer, Sgt. Allaga approached appellant, used the term “score,” and requested P30.00 worth of marijuana. Appellant asked him to wait, left, and returned minutes later to hand over a Camel cigarette pack containing marijuana sticks, for which he was immediately arrested. The seized items tested positive for marijuana.
The defense presented a contrasting version, alleging instigation. Appellant testified that Sgt. Allaga approached him asking to buy marijuana for medicinal purposes. Appellant claimed he denied knowledge but, upon the officer’s insistence, relayed the request to a passerby, Aris Magarse, who obtained the marijuana. Appellant asserted he merely acted as an intermediary, not a seller, and was entrapped after handing the item to Sgt. Allaga.

ISSUE

The core issue is whether the circumstances constitute a valid entrapment or an impermissible instigation that would absolve the accused.

RULING

The Supreme Court affirmed the conviction but modified the penalty to life imprisonment. The Court upheld the trial court’s assessment, giving credence to the positive and credible testimony of Sgt. Allaga, who detailed the buy-bust operation without evidence of improper motive. The Court emphasized the legal distinction between entrapment and instigation. Entrapment occurs when the criminal intent originates from the accused, and law enforcement merely provides the opportunity to commit the crime. Instigation happens when officers implant the criminal idea in the mind of the accused, who would not have committed it otherwise.
The facts established a valid entrapment. Appellant’s immediate understanding of the term “score” and his prompt actions—inquiring about the amount, accepting payment, and procuring the marijuana—demonstrated he was already engaged in illicit trade. The officer’s query was not an inducement but a tactical approach that appellant readily accommodated. The defense of instigation was rejected as the appellant’s testimony was found inconsistent and improbable. The Court noted that while appellant’s signature on the property receipt was inadmissible for being obtained without counsel during custodial investigation, his guilt was sufficiently proven by other evidence, including Sgt. Allaga’s direct account and the forensic confirmation of the seized marijuana.