The defendants  Lua  Chu and Uy Se Tieng appeal from the judgment of the  Court of  First Instance of Cebu convicting them 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.

In support of their appeal, the appellants assign the following alleged  errors as  committed by the court  below in its judgment, to wit:

"The lower court erred:

1. In refusing to compel the Hon.  Secretary of Finance or 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.
   
2. In holding  it as a fact that  'no doubt many times opium  consignments  have passed  thru  the customhouse without the knowledge of the customs secret service.
   
3. In rejecting  the defendants' theory  that  the said Juan Samson in denouncing the accused  was actuated  by a desire to protect himself and  to injure ex-collector Joaquin Natividad,  his  bitter enemy, who was partly instrumental in the dismissal of  Samson from the service.
   
4. In finding  that  the  conduct  of Juan  Samson, dismissed chief customs secret service agent of Cebu, is above reproach  and  utterly  irreconcilable with  the  corrupt motives attributed to him  by the accused.
   
5. 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.
   
6. In giving full credit to the testimony  of said Juan Samson.
   
7. In refusing to hold that Juan Samson induced the defendant Uy Se Tieng to order the opium from Hongkong.
   
8. in accepting Exhibits E and E-1 as the true and correct  transcript of the conversation between Juan Samson and the appellant Uy Se Tieng.
   
9. In accepting Exhibit F as the true and correct transcript of the conversation between Juan Samson and the appellant  Lua Chu.
   
10. In finding each of the appellants Uy Se Tieng and Lua  Chu  guilty  of the crime of  illegal importation of opium,  and  in  sentencing each to suffer four  years' imprisonment  and to pay a fine of P10,000  and the costs, despite  the presumption of innocence which has not been overcome, despite the unlawful inducement, despite the inherent  weakness  of the evidence presented by the prosecution, emanating from a  spirit of revenge and  from a contaminated, polluted  source."

The following are uncontradicted facts proved beyond a reasonable doubt  at the trial:

About the middle of the month of November, 1929, the accused Uy Se Tieng wrote to his correspondent in Hongkong to send him a shipment of opium.

About November 4, 1929, after the chief  of the customs secret service of  Cebu, Juan Samson,  had  returned from a vacation in Europe, he called upon the then collector of customs for the Port of Cebu, Joaquin Natividad, at his office, and the  latter,  after a short  conversation, asked him  how much  his trip had  cost him.  When the chief of the secret  service told him he had spent P2,500, the said collector of  customs took from  a  drawer in  his table, the amount of P300,  in paper money, and  handed it  to him, saying: "This  is  for  you,  and  a shipment  will  arrive shortly, and you will soon be able  to recoup  your travelling expenses."  Juan  Samson took the money, left,  and put it into the safe in his  office to be kept until he delivered it to the provincial treasurer of Cebu.   A week later, Natividad  called Samson  and told him that the shipment he had  referred to consisted  of opium,  that it  was about to arrive, and  that  the owner would go  to Samson's  house to see him.  That very  night Uy Se Tieng went to Sam- son's house  and  told him he had come by  order of Natividad to talk to him about the opium.  The said accused informed  Samson that  the  opium shipment consisted  of 3,000 tins, and that he had agreed to pay Natividad P6,000 or P2  a tin, and that the opium had  been  in  Hongkong since the beginning of October awaiting a ship that would go direct to Cebu.

At about  6 o'clock in the afternoon of  November 22, 1929, one Nam Tai loaded on the steamship Kolambugan, which the Naviera Filipina a shipping company in Cebu had  had built  in Hongkong, 38 cases consigned  to  Uy Seheng and marked "U. L. H."  About the  same  date Natividad informed Samson that the opium had  already been put on board the steamship Kolambugan,  and it was agreed between them that  Samson would receive P2,000, Natividad P2,000, and the remaining P2,000  would be distributed among certain employees in the customhouse.

Meanwhile, Uy Se Tieng continued his interviews with Samson.   Towards the  end of November,  Natividad informed  the  latter that  the Kolambugan  had returned  to Hongkong on  account of certain engine trouble, and remained  there until December 7th.  In view of this, the shipper several times attempted to  unload  the shipment, but he was told  each  time by the  captain, who needed the cargo for ballast, that the ship was about to sail, and the 30 cases remained on board.

The  Kolambugan arrived at  Cebu on the morning  of December 14,  1929.  While he  was examining the  manifests, Samson detailed  one of his men to watch the ship. After conferring with Natividad, the  latter instructed him to do everything possible to have the cargo unloaded, and to require Uy Se Tieng to pay over  the  P6,000.  On the morning of  November  16,  1929, Natividad  told Samson that Uy Se  Tieng already had the papers ready to with- draw the cases marked "U. L. H." from the customhouse. Samson then told Natividad it would be better for Uy Se Tieng to go to his  house to have a talk with him.  Uy Se Tieng went to Samson's house that night and  was told that he must pay over theP6,000 before taking the opium out of the  customhouse.  Uy Se Tieng showed  Samson the bill of lading and on leaving said: "I will tell the owner, and see whether we can take the money to you tomorrow." The following  day  Samson  informed  Colonel Francisco of the Constabulary, of  all that had  taken  place, and the said colonel instructed the provincial commander, Captain Buenconsejo, to discuss the capture of the  opium owners with  Samson.  Buenconsejo and Samson agreed  to meet at the latter's house that same  night.  That afternoon Samson went to the office of the .provincial fiscal,  reported the case to the fiscal, and asked  for a stenographer to take down the conversation he would have with Uy Se Tieng that night  in the  presence of  Captain Buenconsejo.  As the fiscal did not  have  a good  stenographer  available, Samson got one Jumapao,  of the law  firm of Rodriguez & Zacarias,  on the recommendation of the court stenographer. On the evening of December  17, 1929, as agreed, Captain Buenconsejo, Lieutenant Fernando, and  the stenographer went to Samson's house and concealed themselves behind a curtain made of strips of wood which hung from the window overlooking  the entrance to the house on the ground floor.  As soon as the accused Uy Se Tieng arrived, Samson asked  him  if he had  brought the money.  He replied that he had  not, saying that the owner of the opium, who was Lua Chu, was afraid of him.  Samson then told him to tell Lua Chu not  to be  afraid, and  that he might come  to  Samson's  house.  After pointing  out to Uy Se Tieng a back door  entrance into the garden, he asked him where the  opium was, and  Uy Se Tieng answered  that it was in the cases numbered 11  to 18, and that there were 3,252 tins.   Uy Se  Tieng returned at  about 10 o'clock that night accompanied  by his codefendant Lua Chu, who said he was not the sole owner of the opium, but that a man from Manila, named Tan, and another  in Amoy were also owners.  Samson then asked  Lua Chu when he was going to get the opium, and the latter answered that Uy Se Tieng would take charge of that.  On being asked if he had brought the P6,000, Lua Chu answered, no, but  promised to deliver it when the opium was, in Uy Se Tieng's warehouse.  After this conversation, which  was taken down in shorthand,  Samson took the  accused Lua Chu aside and asked him: "I say, old fellow, why didn't you tell  me about this before  bringing the opium here?'*  Lua Chu answered: "Impossible, sir; you were not here, you were in  Spain  on: vacation."  On  being asked by  Samson how he had come to bring in the opium,  Lua  Chu answered: "I was in a cockpit one Sunday when the collector called me aside and said  there  was good  business,  because opium brought a good price, and he needed money."  All this conversation was  overheard by Captain  Buenconsejo.  It was  then agreed that Uy Se Tieng should take the papers with him at 10 o'clock next morning.  At  the appointed hour, Uy Se Tieng and one Uy Ay  arrived at Samson's house, and as Uy Se Tieng was  handing certain papers over to his companion, Uy Ay, Captain  Buenconsejo, who had been hiding, appeared  and  arrested the two Chinamen,  taking the aforementioned papers,  which consisted of bills  of lading (Exhibits  B and B-1), and an  invoice written  in Chinese characters, and relating to the articles described in Exhibit  B.  After  having  taken  Uy Se Tieng and Uy Ay  to the  Constabulary  headquarters, and notified the fiscal, Captain Buenconsejo and Samson went to Lua Chu's home to  search it and  arrest him.  In the pocket of  a coat  hanging on a wall, which Lua Chu said belonged  to him,  they found five letters written in  Chinese characters relating to  the opium  (Exhibits G to K).  Captain Buenconsejo and Samson also took  Lua Chu to the Constabulary headquarters, and  then went to the customhouse to examine the cases marked  "U. L. H." In the cases marked Nos. 11 to 18, they found 3,252 opium tins  hidden away in a quantity of dry fish.  The value of the opium confiscated amounted  to P50,000.

In the afternoon  of December 18, 1929, Captain Buenconsejo  approached  Lua  Chu and asked  him to tell the truth as to who was the owner of the opium.  Lua Chu answered as follows: "Captain, it is useless to ask me any questions,  for I am  not going to answer them.  The only thing I will say is that whoever the owner of this contraband may be, he is  not such a fool as to bring it in here without the  knowledge of those " pointing towards the customhouse.

The defense attempted  to show that after Juan Samson had obtained a loan  of P200 from Uy Se Tieng, he induced him  to order the opium from  Hongkong  saying that  it only cost from P2 to P3 a tin there, while in Cebu  it cost from P18  to P20, and that he could make a good deal of money by bringing in  a shipment  of that drug; that Samson told Uy Se  Tieng, furthermore, that there would be no  danger,  because he  and  the collector of customs would protect him;  that  Uy Se Tieng  went to  see Natividad, who told him  he had no objection, if Somson agreed; that Uy Se Tieng  then wrote  to his correspondent in Hongkong to forward the opium; that after he had ordered it, Samson went to  Uy Se Tieng's store, in the name of Natividad, and demanded the payment of P6,000; that Uy Se Tieng then wrote to his Hongkong correspondent cancelling the order, but the latter answered that the opium had already been loaded and the captain of the Kolambugan refused to let him unload it; that when the opium arrived, Samson insisted upon the payment of the P6,000; that as Uy Se Tieng did not have that amount, he went to  Lua Chu on the night of December 14th, and  proposed that he participate; that at first Lua Chu was unwilling to accept Uy Se  Tieng's proposition, but  he finally agreed to pay P6,000 when the opium had passed the customhouse; that Lua  Chu went to  Samson's house on the  night of December 17th, because Samson at  last  agreed to  deliver the opium without first receiving the P6,000, provided Lua Chu personally promised to  pay him  that amount.

The appellants make ten assignments  of error as committed by the trial court in its  judgment.  Some refer to the refusal of the trial judge to  permit the presentation of certain documentary evidence, and, to the exclusion of Juan Samson,  the principal witness for the Government, from the court room during  the hearing;  offers refer to  the admission of the alleged statements of the accused taken in shorthand; and the others to the sufficiency of the evidence of the prosecution to establish the guilt of the defendants beyond a reasonable doubt.

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.

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).

Neither did the  trial judge  err when he admitted  in evidence  the transcript  of the   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  un-impeached witnesses who heard the statements.

As to whether the probatory facts  are sufficient to establish the facts alleged in  the information, we find that  the testimony given by the witnesses for the prosecution should be believed, because the officers of the Constabulary and the chief of the customs secret service, who gave it, only did their duty.  Aside from this, the  defendants  do  not deny  their participation in the illegal importation of the opium, though the accused Lua Chu pretends that he was only  a guarantor to secure the payment of the gratuity which the former collector of customs, Joaquin Natividad, had asked of him for Juan Samson and certain customs employees.  This assertion,  however,  is  contradicted  by his own  statement made to Juan  Samson and overheard by Captain Buenconsejo, that he was one of the owners of the opium that had been unlawfully imported.

But the defendants'  principal defense is  that they were induced by  Juan Samson  to  import the opium  in question.  Juan  Samson denies this,  and his conduct in connection  with the introduction  of  the  prohibited drug into the port of Cebu, bears  him out.  A public official who induces a person to commit a crime for purposes of gain, does  not take the steps necessary to seize the instruments of the crime and to  arrest the offender, before having obtained the profit he  had in mind.   It is  true that Juan Samson smoothed the way for the introduction of the prohibited drug,  but that was after the accused had already planned  its importation and  ordered said drug,  leaving only  its  introduction into  the  country through the Cebu customhouse to be managed, and  he  did not do so to help them  carry their plan  to a successful issue, but rather to assure the seizure of  the  imported  drug and the arrest of the smugglers.

The doctrines referring to the  entrapment of offenders and instigation to commit crime, as laid down by the courts of the United States, are summarized in 16 Corpus Juris, page  88,  section 57,  as follows:

"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 facilities 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 a  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."

As we have seen,  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 re- move 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 is simply a trap set to catch a criminal.

Wherefore, we are of opinion and so hold, that the mere fact that the chief of the customs secret service pretended to agree to a plan for smuggling illegally imported opium through the customhouse, in order  the better  to assure the seizure of said opium and the arrest of its  importers, is no bar  to the prosecution and conviction of  the latter.

By virtue whereof, finding no error  in the judgment appealed  from, the  same  is  hereby  affirmed, with  costs against the appellants.  So  ordered.

Avanceña, C. J., Johnson, Street, Malcolm, Villamor, Romualdez, and Imperial,  JJ., concur.