Decoy solicitation

A LAW EACH DAY (Keeps Trouble Away) By Jose C. Sison (The Philippine Star) Updated April 07, 2010 12:00 AM

This is another case involving drug buy bust operation. The issue here is whether there was entrapment or instigation; whether ways and means are employed for purposes of trapping or capturing him or whether the accused is lured or investigated into the commission of the crime in order to prosecute him. This distinction is important because if a person is instigated or lured into the commission of the crime, he may not be criminally liable. This is the case of Paco.

Paco was accused among others, of violating the Dangerous Drugs Act for willfully, unlawfully and knowingly (1) selling 0.28 grams of shabu contained in one heat sealed transparent plastic sachet for P500 in violation of Section 5 (1).

During the trial, the prosecution presented Police Officer (PO1) Mora and PO3 Aranas both members of the Taguig Police Station Drug Enforcement Unit. They testified: that on July 20, 2004 at around 11 p.m. a confidential informant arrived at their office and reported the illegal activities of a certain “Berto” in a certain Barangay. So their group leader SPI Ramos formed a buy-bust team with PO1 Mora as the poseur-buyer and the rest of the group as back up; that after marking and recording in the blotter the buy-bust money, the team along with the informant proceed to the place where Berto lives; that upon reaching the place, PO1 Mora and the informant walked towards Berto who was leaning against a wall, while the rest of the team positioned themselves at strategic locations from where they could clearly see what was going on; that the informant then introduced PO1 Mora to Berto as a taxi driver who wanted to buy shabu; that Berto immediately took the P500 buy-bust money from Mora and showed three plastic sachets containing shabu in his palm and asked Mora to pick one; that once Mora took hold of the shabu, he took off his cap which was the prearranged signal for the rest of the team to close in and arrest Berto; that Berto became suspicious when PO3 Aranas came near them and he attempted to flee but Mora stopped him and ordered him to empty his pocket where the two other sachets were recovered; that Berto was then brought to the police station where he was later identified as Paco; that the three sachets were then brought and examined at the Crime laboratory and were tested positive for methamphetamine hydrochloride, a dangerous drugs.

Despite the denial and alibi of Paco that he was merely watching TV when armed men barged into the house as corroborated by his granddaughter and sister in law, the Regional Trial Court (RTC) found him guilty of the two charges and sentenced him to life imprisonment for illegally selling shabu. This decision was affirmed in toto by the Court of Appeals (CA).

Paco questioned the decision. He argued that the buy-bust operation conducted was invalid and that what really happened was instigation, not entrapment. He said that the acts of the informant and the poseur buyer in pretending that they were in need of shabu instigated or induced him to violate the Anti-Drugs law. Was he correct?


No. In the instant case the evidence clearly shows that the police officers used entrapment, not instigation, to capture Paco in the act of selling dangerous drugs. The facts categorically show a typical buy-bust operation as a form of entrapment. It is legal and has been proved to be an effective method of apprehending drug peddlers provided due regard to the constitutional and legal safeguards is undertaken.

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 the 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 of a kind habitually committed and the solicitation merely furnishes evidence of a course of conduct. Mere deception by the detective or undercover agent will not shield the offender if the offense was committed by him free from influence or instigation of the detective.

What is material to the prosecution of the illegal sale of drugs is that the accused sold and delivered a prohibited drug to another and he knew that what he had sold was a prohibited drug coupled with the presentation in court of the evidence of corpus delicti. All these elements were satisfactorily proved by the prosecution in this case. Paco sold and delivered shabu for P500 to PO1 Mora posing as buyer; the said shabu was seized and identified as a prohibited drug and subsequently presented in evidence; there was actual exchange of the marked money and the contraband; and finally Paco was fully aware that he was selling and delivering a prohibited drug (People vs. Pagkalinawan, G.R. 184805, March 3, 2010).