Decoy

In anti-narcotics drive, police usually resort to the buy-bust operation which is actually a form of entrapment. Courts recognize this practice as a valid means of arresting violators of Dangerous Drugs Law precisely because of the difficulty in apprehending offenders. Sometimes however, instead of entrapment, the police actually instigate or induce the suspect into committing the offense which is already contrary to public policy and may absolve the offender. This case Naomi explains the difference between entrapment and instigation.

On April 22, 2003 at around 4 p.m., an informant approached Police Officer (PO2) Andy who is assigned to the Mayor’s Special Action Team, to report on the rampant incidence of drug abuse at a Village in Pasig City and about a drug pusher known by the name of Naomi. After getting more details, Andy informed his superior who then instructed him, PO1 Julie, PO1 Al and PO1 Rolly to conduct a buy-bust operation. Andy was designated to act as poseur-buyer so he was given two P100 bills as buy bust money. The rest of the team served as his backup with Al as the team leader.

At around 5:15 p.m., the team reached the village, where after a briefing on their operations, Andy and the informant proceeded to Naomi’s house while the others strategically placed themselves within the vicinity keeping Andy within their view. Upon seeing Naomi who was outside her house, the informant introduced Andy to her as a “scorer”. Naomi asked them how much they wanted to “score”, to which Andy replied “P200 paggamit lang”. After Andy gave Naomi the buy bust money marked with his initials, Naomi reached into her pocket and gave him one heat sealed plastic sachet containing suspected shabu. As soon as Andy got the sachet he scratched his head as a signal to his team that the transaction was over. Thereafter he introduced himself as a police officer, informed Naomi of her rights and marked the sachet he received with his initials.

The team then brought Naomi to the hospital for check up and then to the police station where the appropriate charges were prepared against her. Meanwhile Andy sent the sachet to the PNP Crime Laboratory for examination and determination of the contents. After receiving the chemistry report confirming that the sachet contained shabu, a Criminal Information was filed in the Regional Trial Court (RTC) accusing Naomi of violation of Section 5 Article of R.A. 9165 for selling and delivering prohibited drugs.

At first Naomi denied the accusation and claimed that she was merely inside her house taking care of her grandson when Andy and Al peeked through the window and asked if she was Naomi. When she answered in the affirmative, the two police officers allegedly pushed the door open and told her to go with them. Because of shock she said she was not able to ask why they were taking her and when asked about her shabu source, Naomi claimed she told the officer that she didn’t know what they are talking about. She claimed she had never been arrested before and was never involved in any illegal activity.

But the RTC was more convinced with the version of the prosecution as narrated by Police Officer Andy and Julie against Naomi’s negative testimony consisting of mere denial. So Naomi was sentenced to life imprisonment and fined P500,000.

On appeal, Naomi added another defense. She claimed that she was induced into committing the crime as she was the one approached by Andy who was then looking to buy shabu. So there was no entrapment but instigation which is contrary to public policy. Was Naomi correct?

No. Entrapment is a method of apprehending criminals by trapping and capturing them in the execution of the criminal intent. Here, the idea to commit a crime originates from the offender without anybody prodding him to commit it. Mere deception by the police officer will not exculpate the perpetrator if the offense was committed free from the influence of the police officer.

Instigation, on the other hand involves the inducement of the suspect into the commission of the offense in which the instigators become co-principals themselves. In instigation, the idea to commit the crime or the criminal intent originates from the mind of the inducer or instigating person who lures the accused into committing the offense in order to prosecute him. Instigation is recognized as a valid defense that can be raised by an accused but it must be proved by sufficient evidence.

In this case Naomi agreed to sell P200 worth of shabu to Andy who was then posing as a buyer. She was never forced, coerced or induced to source the prohibited drug for Andy. In fact Andy did not even have to ask her if she could sell him some shabu. Andy merely informed her that he was a “scorer” then Naomi immediately asked him how much. Under the circumstances the police officers were not only authorized but also obligated to arrest Naomi even without an arrest warrant as the crime was committed in their presence (People vs. Legaspi, G.R. 173485, November 23, 2011).