G.R. No. 78527 - People vs. Guiagui y Koteng

The case involves an appeal by John Guiagui y Koteng, who was convicted in Criminal Case No. Q-42795 of the Regional Trial Court of Quezon City.
He was found guilty of violating Section 4, Article II of Republic Act No. 6425, as amended, and was initially sentenced to reclusion perpetua and a fine of P30,000.00 with costs.

On November 4, 1985, the PC Narcotics Command (NARCOM) received information from a confidential informant regarding a known drug pusher, Johnny, who was allegedly in Manila to sell marijuana.
M/Sgt. Arsenio Carlos of the NARCOM was assigned to conduct an intelligence build-up and to pose as a buyer by speaking in Ilocano.
At the Uniwide Sales Center in Cubao, Quezon City, the informant and M/Sgt. Carlos met Johnny at the restaurant on the second floor, where an agreement was reached:

M/Sgt. Carlos, acting as a buyer, stated his need for three (3) kilos of marijuana.
The agreed price was P1,500.00 per kilo, with Johnny promising to return on November 9, 1985, with the product.
A pre-arranged signal was established for the arrest operation.

M/Sgt. Carlos and a back-up team led by P/Lt. Casimiro Llanes proceeded to the designated meeting place at approximately 6:00 o’clock in the evening.
At the back exit of the Uniwide Sales Center, Johnny appeared carrying a travelling bag.

Upon examining the content of the bag, M/Sgt. Carlos identified it as marijuana fruiting tops.
A receipt acknowledging the bag and its contents was prepared and signed by both M/Sgt. Carlos and the accused, John Guiagui.

The seized articles were sent to the PC Crime Laboratory for further examination, confirming their identity as marijuana.

The accused admitted to his arrest on November 9, 1985, but denied that the bag in question belonged to him.
He recounted an alternative series of events:

He claimed that he and an acquaintance known as Vic were in the restaurant at the time when police officers suddenly handcuffed them.
According to his testimony, they were taken out of the store, loaded into a car, and separated.
He described further mistreatment, including having his eyes taped, removal of his shirt and pants, physical abuse, water being poured over him, and being repeatedly electrocuted during an intensive interrogation lasting about two hours.
Upon arriving at Camp Crame, after removal of his blindfold, he was compelled to sign a receipt and identify an object on a table, which was recorded photographically.

Renan Liselo, a security guard stationed at the Uniwide Sales Center, testified that:

He observed the handcuffing of the accused and his companion at around 5:00 o’clock in the afternoon.
He noted that the men placing the handcuffs carried firearms and that the accused and his companion were not seen carrying any suspicious bags, contrary to the store’s policy.

The testimonies of NARCOM officers, particularly M/Sgt. Carlos and P/Lt. Llanes, were marked as credible and consistent with the standard protocols followed by law enforcement officers in similar operations.

The defense argued that the accused was induced or entrapped by the NARCOM agents into committing the crime.
Citing segments of the testimony of M/Sgt. Carlos, the appellant contended that his actions were a result of police instigation rather than his own volition.
However, the record revealed that the operations amounted to classic entrapment, where the accused was merely caught in the act rather than being induced to commit the offense.
Testimonies indicated that the accused’s own greed and desire for a luxurious lifestyle motivated his actions.

Whether the conduct of the NARCOM agents constituted entrapment or instigation that could absolve the accused of criminal liability.

Examination of whether the agents’ actions amounted to inducing the crime (instigation) or merely trapping an already predisposed lawbreaker (entrapment).

Whether the arrest and subsequent chain of evidence were carried out in conformity with legal protocols and the accused’s due process rights.

Scrutiny of the procedural aspects including the manner of arrest, preparation and signing of the receipt, and the handling of the seized evidence.

Whether the testimony of law enforcement officials was sufficiently credible to establish the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt.

Consideration of the credibility of M/Sgt. Carlos, P/Lt. Llanes, and supporting witness Renan Liselo.

Whether the initial imposition of reclusion perpetua as the penalty was appropriate or if it should be modified to life imprisonment, in accordance with the statutory provisions.