G.R. No. L-69676 June 4, 1990
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, vs. GARDO ESTEVAN y EUGENIO, accused-appellant.

FACTS

Accused-appellant Edgardo Estevan was charged with the illegal sale of marijuana under the Dangerous Drugs Act. On July 2, 1981, based on a confidential tip, a team of PC Anti-Narcotics Unit agents conducted an operation in Mandaluyong. Agent Sgt. Cesar Garcia acted as a poseur-buyer and approached Estevan, ordering P250 worth of marijuana and handing over the marked money. Estevan took the money, proceeded to a waiting shed to confer with an associate known as “Boy Japon,” and returned to deliver two plastic bags of marijuana to Garcia. Upon confirmation of the substance, Estevan was arrested, though Boy Japon escaped. The seized items were later confirmed by laboratory tests to be marijuana.
Post-arrest, Estevan allegedly executed an extrajudicial confession at Camp Crame. The trial court convicted him, a decision affirmed by the Intermediate Appellate Court, which modified the penalty to life imprisonment and a P20,000 fine. The case was elevated to the Supreme Court due to the imposed penalty.

ISSUE

The primary issue is whether the appellant’s conviction for the illegal sale of marijuana is valid, considering his claims of instigation and the alleged violation of his constitutional rights during custodial investigation.

RULING

The Supreme Court affirmed the conviction. The Court meticulously distinguished between entrapment and instigation. Entrapment, which is legal, involves the facilitation of the commission of a crime by a person already predisposed to commit it. Instigation, which is a defense, occurs when law enforcers induce an otherwise innocent person to commit the offense. The Court found the operation to be a valid entrapment. The appellant readily produced the marijuana upon the poseur-buyer’s request, demonstrating his existing engagement in drug trafficking and predisposition to commit the crime. His quick procurement from a known source negated any claim of being an innocent person induced into illegal activity.
Regarding the extrajudicial confession, the Court applied the prevailing rule at the time of its execution in 1981, which did not yet require counsel-assisted waiver for its validity. Regardless, the Court ruled that even if the confession were disregarded, the conviction remained solidly based on other evidence. The credible and straightforward testimony of the poseur-buyer, corroborated by the physical evidence and the chemistry report, constituted proof beyond reasonable doubt. The buy-bust operation was deemed legitimate, and the appellant’s guilt was established independently of any confession.