G.R. No.

34917 September 7, 1931

THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINE ISLANDS, plaintiff-appellee,
vs.
LUA CHU and UY SE TIENG, defendants-appellants.
Case Nature: Petition for review by certiorari of a decision of the CFI [Denied]
CFI Cebu (Illegal Importation of Opium) > SC (affirmed)
VILLA-REAL, J.:

Facts:
 About November 4, 1929, after the Chief of Customs secret service of Cebu, Juan Samson,
had returned from a vacation from Europe, He was inform by the Collector of Customs,
Joaquin Natividad, that a shipment will arrive for the recoupment of his travel expenses.
 After a week, Natividad called Samson that the shipment was consisted of opium, and the
owner would go to Samson’s house to see him. That night Uy Se Tieng went to Samson’s
house informing him that Tieng would pay P6,000 for the opium shipment consisted of 3,000
tins (P2 per tin) for it to safely leave the Customhouse, and the opium had been on
Hongkong since the beginning of October awaiting a ship that would go directly to Cebu.
 On November 22, the 38 cases of consigned Opium, marked “U.L.H.”, was loaded on board
“Kolambungan” a steam ship going to the Cebu. However, only 30 cases remained on board
after the ship’s return to Hongkong because of an engine trouble. It was agreed agreed
between the 3 that P2,000 each would go to Samson and Natividad and the remaining
P2000 would be distributed to certain employees.
 On December 14 1929, Kolambungan arrived in the ports of Cebu. On December 16, Uy Se
Tieng informed Samson that the former consult the real owners on how to proceed the
payment of P6K & will come over to Samson’s house on Dec. 17, 1929 to inform the decision
of the owners.
 On December 17, Samson informed the Constabulary represented by Captain Buencosejo &
the Provincial Fiscal requesting a stenographer to take down the conversation between
Samson & Uy Se Teung.
 On the night of Dec. 17, Captain Buencosejo, Lieutenant and a stenographer named
Jumapao from a law firm and hid themselves behind the curtains in the house of Samson to
witness the conversation between Samson, Uy Se Teung and Lua Chu. Captain Buencosejo &
Jumapao noted the ff. important facts:
o Uy Se Teung informed Samson that Lua Chu was one of the owners of the Opium.
o Lua Chu informed Samson that aside from him, there were co-owners named Tan
and another located in Amoy.
o Lua Chu promised to pay the P6,000 upon delivery of the opium from the warehouse
of Uy Se Tieng.
o A Customs Collector had a conversation before when Samson was on vacation
inEurope, with Lua Chu and agreed on the business of shipping the Opium.
o Uy Se Tieng would bring the papers to Samson the next morning.
 The following morning (Dec 18) while Uy Se Tieng and companion, Uy Ay presented papers
to Samson Captain Buencosejo showed up & caught them in the act & arrested the two
Chinese. The Constabulary then arrested Lua Chu & confiscated P50K worth of Opium (3,252
tins).
 The Court of First Instance of Cebu convicted Lua Chu and Uy Se Tieng of the illegal
importation of opium, and sentencing them each to four years' imprisonment, a fine of
 P10,000, with subsidiary imprisonment in case of insolvency not to exceed one-third of the
principal penalty, and to pay the proportional costs. Hence the Appeal.
 In support of their appeal, the appellants assigned the following alleged errors inter alia as
committed by the court below in its judgment to wit:
o In giving full credit to the Testimony of Said Juan Samson (A)
o In refusing to hold that Juan Samson induced the defendant Uy Se Tieng to order the
Opium from Hongkong. (B)
o In refusing to compel the Hon. Secretary of Finance of the Insular Collector of
Customs to exhibit in court the record of the administrative investigation against
Joaquin Natividad, collector of customs of Cebu, and Juan Samson, supervising
customs secret service agent of Cebu, both of whom have since been dismissed from
service. (C)
o In permitting Juan Samson, prosecution star witness, to remain in the court room
while other prosecution witnesses were testifying, despite the previous order of the
court excluding the Government witnesses from the court room, and in refusing to
allow the defense to inquire from Insular Collector of Customs Aldanese regarding
the official conduct of Juan Samson as supervising customs secret service agent of
Cebu. (D)
o In finding each of the appellants Uy Se Tieng and Lua Chu guilty of the crime of
illegal importation of opium.

Issues:
 Whether or not the Appellants should be exonerated because of their defense that they
were induced by Juan Samson to import to opium. (No)

Held:
 Juan Samson neither induced nor instigated the herein defendants-appellants to import the
opium in question, as the latter contend, but pretended to have an understanding with the
collector of customs, Joaquin Natividad — who had promised them that he would remove all
the difficulties in the way of their enterprise so far as the customhouse was concerned —
not to gain the P2,000 intended for him out of the transaction, but in order the better to
assure the seizure of the prohibited drug and the arrest of the surreptitious importers. There
is certainly nothing immoral in this or against the public good which should prevent the
Government from prosecuting and punishing the culprits, for this is not a case where an
innocent person is induced to commit a crime merely to prosecute him, but it simply a trap
set to catch a criminal. (A) & (B)
 With respect to the presentation of the record of the administrative proceedings against
Joaquin Natividad, collector of customs of Cebu, and Juan Samson, supervising customs
secret service agent of Cebu, who were dismissed from the service, the trial court did not err
in not permitting it, for, whatever the result of those proceedings, they cannot serve to
impeach the witness Juan Samson, for it is not one of the means prescribed in section 342 of
the Code of Civil Procedure to that end. (C)
 With regard to the trial judge's refusal to order the exclusion of Juan Samson, the principal
witness of the Government, from the court room during the hearing, it is within the power
of said judge to do so or not, and it does not appear that he has abused his discretion (16
Corpus Juris, 842). (D)
 Neither did the trial judge err when he admitted in evidence the transcript of stenographic
notes of the defendants' statements, since they contain admissions made by themselves,
 and the person who took them in shorthand attested at the trial that they were faithfully
taken down. Besides the contents are corroborated by unimpeached witnesses who heard
the statements.

ENTRAPMENT AND INSTIGATION. — While it has been said that the practice of entrapping persons
into crime for the purpose of instituting criminal prosecutions is to be deplored, and while
instigation, as distinguished from mere entrapment, has often been condemned and has sometimes
been held to prevent the act from being criminal or punishable, the general rule is that it is no
defense to the perpetrator of a crime that facilitates for its commission were purposely placed in his
way, or that the criminal act was done at the "decoy solicitation" of persons seeking to expose the
criminal, or that detectives feigning complicity in the act were present and apparently assisting in its
commission. Especially is this true in that class of cases where the offense is one of a kind habitually
committed, and the solicitation merely furnishes evidence of a course of conduct. Mere deception
by the detective will not shield defendant, if the offense was committed by him free from the
influence or the instigation of the detective. The fact that an agent of an owner acts as supposed
confederate of a thief is no defense to the latter in a prosecution for larceny, provided the original
design was formed independently of such agent; and where a person approached by the thief as his
confederate notifies the owner or the public authorities, and, being authorized by them to do so,
assists the thief in carrying out the plan, the larceny is nevertheless committed. It is generally held
that it is no defense to a prosecution for an illegal sale of liquor that the purchase was made by a
"spotter," detective, or hired informer; but there are cases holding the contrary. (also stated in
REYES)

Entrapment (Not an Absolutory cause)

1. The practice of entrapping persons into crime for the purpose of instituting criminal
prosecutions
2. It is a scheme or technique ensuring the apprehension of the criminals by being in the actual
crime scene.
3. The law officers shall not be guilty to the crime if he have done the following:
a. He does not induce a person to commit a crime for personal gain or is not involved
in the planning of the crime.
b. Does take the necessary steps to seize the instrument of the crime and to arrest the
offenders before he obtained the profits in mind.

Instigation (Absolutory cause) is the involvement of a law officer in the crime itself in the following
manners:

1. He induces a person to commit a crime for personal gain

2. Doesn’t take the necessary steps to seize the instrument of the crime & to arrest the
offenders before he obtained the profits in mind.
3. He obtained the profits in mind even through afterwards does take the necessary steps seize
the instrument of the crime and to arrest the offenders.

There was no error in the judgment appealed from, the same is affirmed, with costs against the
appellants. So ordered.