G.R. No. L-68482 October 23, 1985
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, vs. EDGARDO BERALDE, accused-appellant.

FACTS

The prosecution’s evidence established that on September 22, 1981, in Paco, Manila, police received information that Edgardo Beralde was a marijuana peddler. Patrolwoman Lolita Opeñano, accompanied by an informant, approached Beralde. The informant introduced Opeñano as his girlfriend, and she asked Beralde if he had marijuana for sale. Beralde affirmed, asked for twenty pesos, left briefly, and returned to hand over two aluminum foils of dried marijuana leaves. Upon delivery, he was arrested by nearby officers. Beralde admitted the sale but presented a different narrative. He claimed he merely accompanied friends who wanted to buy marijuana and led them to a certain “Eboy,” who transacted the sale. He asserted he never handled the money and was later arrested when Eboy could not be found, framing the incident as police instigation.

ISSUE

The core issue is whether Beralde’s guilt for the sale of marijuana was proven beyond reasonable doubt, and whether the police operation constituted illegal instigation or valid entrapment.

RULING

The Supreme Court affirmed the conviction. The Court found the prosecution’s version credible, ruling the operation was a legitimate entrapment, not instigation. In entrapment, law enforcers employ ruses to catch a culprit already engaged in criminal activity; it is legal. Instigation, which is prohibited, occurs when the police induce an innocent person to commit a crime they would not have otherwise committed. The evidence showed Beralde was already a peddler, and the police merely provided the opportunity for him to commit the sale. His direct actions—affirming he had marijuana, receiving payment, and delivering the contraband—proved his guilt to a moral certainty. However, records showed Beralde was only 17 years old at the time of the offense, entitling him to the privileged mitigating circumstance of minority under Article 68 of the Revised Penal Code. Despite this, the penalty for sale of marijuana under the applicable law was life imprisonment to death, and the Indeterminate Sentence Law does not apply to such penalties. Therefore, the Court upheld the life imprisonment sentence but, in light of his minority, recommended to the Chief Executive, through the Minister of Justice, that executive clemency be considered after he served a sufficient term.