INSTIGATION: Illegal, Contrary to Public Policy
The findings and conclusion of the trial court on the credibility of witnesses
are entitled to great respect because the trial courts have the advantage of
observing the demeanor of witnesses as they testify. In the process of
converting into written form the statements of living human beings, not only
fine nuances but a world of meaning apparent to the judge present, watching and
listening, may escape the reader of the translated words.
In the instant case, the police arrested accused-appellant in a buy-bust
operation. A buy-bust
operation is one form of entrapment
employed by peace officers as an effective way of apprehending a criminal in
the act of the commission of an offense. Entrapment has received judicial
sanction when undertaken with due regard for constitutional and legal
safeguards. Where the criminal intent originates in the mind of the
accused and the criminal offense is completed, the fact that a person, acting
as a decoy for the state, or that public officials furnished the accused an
opportunity for commission of the offense, or that the accused is aided in the
commission of the crime in order to secure the evidence necessary to prosecute
him, there is permissible entrapment and the accused must be
convicted. What the law forbids is the inducing of another to violate the
law, the seduction of an otherwise innocent person into a criminal
career. Where the criminal intent originates in the mind of the state
decoy, such as an undercover agent, and the accused is lured into the
commission of the offense charged in order to prosecute him, there is
instigation, as we call it in our jurisprudence, and no conviction may be
had. In instigation, the instigator practically induces the would-be accused
into the commission of the offense and himself becomes a co-principal.
In entrapment, the peace officer resorts to ways and means to trap and capture
the lawbreaker in the execution of the latters criminal plan. Instigation is
illegal and contrary to public policy. Entrapment is not.
In the instant case, the police arrested accused-appellant in a buy-bust
operation. A buy-bust
operation is one form of entrapment
employed by peace officers as an effective way of apprehending a criminal in
the act of the commission of an offense. Entrapment has received judicial
sanction when undertaken with due regard for constitutional and legal
safeguards. Where the criminal intent originates in the mind of the
accused and the criminal offense is completed, the fact that a person, acting
as a decoy for the state, or that public officials furnished the accused an
opportunity for commission of the offense, or that the accused is aided in the
commission of the crime in order to secure the evidence necessary to prosecute
him, there is permissible entrapment and the accused must be
convicted. What the law forbids is the inducing of another to violate the
law, the seduction of an otherwise innocent person into a criminal
career. Where the criminal intent originates in the mind of the state
decoy, such as an undercover agent, and the accused is lured into the
commission of the offense charged in order to prosecute him, there is
instigation, as we call it in our jurisprudence, and no conviction may be
had. In instigation, the instigator practically induces the would-be accused
into the commission of the offense and himself becomes a co-principal.
In entrapment, the peace officer resorts to ways and means to trap and capture
the lawbreaker in the execution of the latters criminal plan. Instigation is
illegal and contrary to public policy. Entrapment is not.
In the case at bar, the details of the transaction were clearly and adequately
shown, viz.: (a) the initial contact between the poseur-buyer and the pusher;
(b) the offer to buy; (c) the promise or payment of the consideration; and (d)
the delivery of the illegal drug subject of the sale. The initial contact was
made through an informant. On the day of the operation, the informant
approached accused-appellant Jocson, a.k.a. Manong, and introduced him to SPO1
Delos Santos, the poseur-buyer. Delos Santos then offered to buy when he told
Manong, Pare, pabili ng piso. The sale was consummated after payment and
delivery when SPO1 Delos Santos handed Manong the marked 100-peso bill, and
Manong took out from his pocket and handed SPO1 Delos Santos a plastic sachet
containing shabu. From the moment SPO1 Delos Santos received the prohibited
drug from Manong, the illegal sale of the dangerous drug was
consummated. Manong was at once apprehended, and four more sachets of
shabu were found in his possession.
READ MORE ON ENTRAPMENT VS. INSTIGATION:
https://www.projectjurisprudence.com/2017/06/entrapment-v-instigation.html.
Having established that the illegal sale took place between the poseur-buyer
and the seller, the prosecution likewise presented the dangerous drug, i.e.,
the corpus delicti, as evidence in court. The illegal substance sold,
including the four other sachets recovered from the pocket of
accused-appellant, was offered as evidence during the trial and properly
identified by the prosecution witnesses. The prosecution also accounted for
the chain of custody of the subject substances. From accused-appellants
possession, police officers Delos Santos and Antonio seized the sachets of
shabu and turned them over to Police Investigator Moran who marked the pieces
of evidence. Then, Moran turned them over to the NPD crime laboratory for
chemical analysis, where Police Inspector Juanita Sioson, a Forensic Chemical
Engineer, found the white crystalline granules contained in five heat-sealed
transparent plastic sachets to be positive for methylamphetamine
hydrochloride, a dangerous drug. (G.R. No. 169875; December 18, 2007)