UNITED STATES V.

PHELPS
GR NO. 5728
AUGUST 11, 1910
PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE: United States
(Attorney-General Villamor)
DEFENDANT-APPELLANT: James O.
Phelps (P.J. Moore and W.H. Bishop)
PONENTE: Trent

TOPIC: Absolutory Causes and Similar

Situations Instigation and Entrapment
TERMS:
Instigation inducement of a would-be
accused into the commission of the offense
wherein instigator himself becomes a coprincipal
Entrapment ways and means resorted to
for the purpose of trapping and capturing
the lawbreaker in the execution of his
criminal plan
Reference: Revised Penal Code by Reyes
(pp. 255-260)
FACTS:

James Phelps was found guilty of smoking

opium (violation of Act No. 1761) in Jolo,
Moro province. The case at hand is his
appeal.
The prosecution had only Homer Smith as
the witness to the crime. They did not
contend that Phelps had possession of
opium nor the pipe used to smoke it.
There are two sides to the story: Smiths
and Phelps.
Smith testified that he first saw Phelps in a
saloon wherein he heard him (Phelps) say
that he smoked opium. Smith took it as his
duty to watch Phelps. The two men talked.
This ended with Smith telling Phelps, I

wish to smoke opium. According to Smith,

Phelps invited him. Phelps failed to prepare
a suitable place for them on two occasions.
Finally, there were able to find a house in
the barrio of Tulay. The opium was
prepared by a Chinese man. Upon
receiving the pipe, Smith immediately
seized the two.
According to Phelps, it was Smith
(apparently an undercover agent of the
Bureau of Internal Revenue), using the
name Lockwood, who suggested smoking
opium. Smith approached Phelps twice in
his home, told him he needed opium
because he was sick, and asked if his
Chinese servant (the one who prepared the
Opium in the house in Tulay) can help him
in procuring opium. They eventually gave in
and was subsequently arrested by Smith.
Phelps Chinese servant corroborated his
testimony. The chief of police testified that
Phelps and his servant did not have an
opportunity to talk together before the
investigation was held.
De Krafft of the U.S. Army described
Phelps as a strong, robust man, in good
physical condition and stated that no one
would accuse him of being an opium
smoker.

ISSUES:
WON Phelps is guilty/WON Smith
instigated Phelps into committing a crime
RULING: The court acquitted Phelps.
The court concurs with Dr. De Kraffts
examination that Phelps did not look like an
opium smoker.
Smith actually encouraged and induced
Phelps to commit a crime in order to
prosecute him. Such conduct is most
reprehensible.