People vs. Marcos

Entrapment, where criminal intent originates from the accused and officers merely facilitate capture, is not a bar to prosecution, while instigation, where officers induce an otherwise unwilling person to commit the offense, requires acquittal. The operation here was entrapment because the accused readily produced and delivered marijuana upon solicitation without need for prodding.

Dante Marcos y Sibayan was a security guard and architectural drafting student boarding in Baguio City. Section 4, Article II of Republic Act No. 6425 penalizes the unauthorized sale, distribution, delivery, and giving away of prohibited drugs such as marijuana.

Major Florencio Junio, Commanding Officer of the First Narcotic Regional Unit in Baguio City, acting on a confidential informer's report that Dante Marcos was selling marijuana at Holy Ghost Hill Proper, organized a buy-bust team on December 4, 1985. A2C Serafin Artizona was designated poseur-buyer, with Junio, Maximo Peralta, Freddie Cortel and Philip de Vera as back-up support. Accompanied by the informer, Artizona went to Holy Ghost Proper where the informer introduced him to Marcos, then standing at a stairway with a companion, as a marijuana buyer.

After being asked to proceed to the second floor, Artizona ordered ten kilos of marijuana at P700.00 per kilo. According to the prosecution, Marcos left the room and returned with a light blue sack which he handed to Artizona. Upon inspection of its contents, Artizona gave the prearranged signal by spitting through the window, introduced himself as a NARCOM agent, and with the back-up team arrested Marcos while his companion evaded arrest. The sack was found to contain ten bundles weighing more or less 9-1/2 kilos. Forensic chemist Lt. Carlos V. Figueroa later examined nine bundles weighing 9.2 kilos pursuant to a December 16, 1985 letter-request, and by Duquenois-Levine and thin-layer chromatography tests found them positive for marijuana.

Marcos, for his part, testified he was a security guard of the Freeport and Vito Security Agency and drafting student at the University of Baguio, boarding at the ground floor of No. 23-C Sumulong St., a two-storey house owned by Melita Adase. On December 4, 1985 he attended class until 2:30 p.m. and returned to review for a 3:30 p.m. subject when Roland Bayogan, a Kalinga-Apayao student occupying a second-floor room whom he had known only since November 15, 1985, knocked and asked him to entertain three visitors — an American, a Filipino and a Negro boy — while Bayogan went out. Ten minutes later Bayogan returned with a big sack hidden by a curtain near the bed; after the American said Okay, I'll pay it, the Filipino visitor declared Relax lang kayo, this is NARCOM, held Marcos and Bayogan, Bayogan broke free and fled amid a shot, and Marcos was taken with the sack to the police station. He claimed Artizona and Peralta were never at the house, that he heard an occupant in the vehicle say Hindi ito talaga ang target natin, iyong nakatakbo, and that he was merely entertaining visitors. Renato Padua, a neighboring boarder, testified to hearing commotion, seeing Bayogan run toward an alley, hearing a shot, and seeing Marcos held by one man followed by an American carrying a sack. Raul Bayangdan corroborated the boarding-house occupancy and that Bayogan fled and never returned.

The trial court credited the prosecution and found the pretension of merely entertaining visitors implausible given the casual, brief acquaintance, lack of townmate ties, scheduled examination, and failure to leave after Bayogan returned, concluding both were engaged in trafficking.

• Instigation and Frame-Up: Petitioner argued that there was instigation or even frame-up and not real entrapment, the buy-bust team not knowing him and the poseur-buyer having to be introduced.
• Absence of Pending Crime: Petitioner maintained that there was no marijuana yet when the authorities and poseur-buyer arrived, and thus he was not about to commit or committing a crime when approached.
• Credibility and Sketch: Petitioner contended that Artizona was not among Bayogan's visitors, that Peralta was never at the boarding house, and that the sketch of the place presented by Artizona was erroneous.

• Entrapment vs. Instigation: Whether the police operation constituted instigation or frame-up requiring acquittal, or valid entrapment permitting conviction.

• Entrapment vs. Instigation: No. Valid entrapment was established, not instigation, the accused having displayed ready supply and willingness to sell without inducement into a crime he would not otherwise commit.

• Entrapment vs. Instigation: The distinction turns on the origin of criminal intent: entrapment originates from the accused, with officers merely facilitating capture during execution of his own plan, while instigation originates from the enforcer who induces an otherwise unwilling person and becomes co-principal. Artizona's clear testimony showed no prodding was needed, as Marcos promptly agreed to sell ten kilos at P700.00 per kilo, left to obtain, and returned with a sack of marijuana for exchange. Feigned solicitation to catch habitual sellers does not exculpate, and ready availability for anyone willing to pay the price confirms predisposition. The frame-up claim was unsupported by clear and convincing evidence, contradicted by positive identification prevailing over denial, corroboration by Peralta, consummation by delivery of the sack presented in court, implausibility of the entertain-visitors explanation, submissive conduct upon arrest, absence of improper police motive, and minor non-material inconsistencies not affecting credibility.

• Entrapment vs. Instigation — In instigation, officers incite, induce or lure an accused into an offense he otherwise would not commit and had no intention to commit, and liability is negated; in entrapment, criminal intent originates from the accused and officers merely facilitate commission to trap the lawbreaker while executing his plan, and liability attaches. Applied here to sustain conviction where the accused readily supplied marijuana upon solicitation.
• Trap for the Unwary Criminal — Entrapment is a trap for the unwary criminal and no bar to prosecution and conviction, while instigation is a trap for the unwary innocent and requires acquittal. Applied to reject the claim that deception by posing as buyer exculpated the seller.
• Consummation by Sale or Delivery — Ownership and possession are not indispensable elements; the mere act of selling or acting as broker, and the consummated agreement plus delivery or giving away of marijuana, completes violation of Section 4, Article II of R.A. No. 6425. Applied where appellant handed the blue sack corresponding to the agreed price and the contents were presented as evidence.
• Marked Money Not Indispensable — So long as the marijuana actually delivered was presented before the court, absence of marked money does not create a hiatus; the crime is consummated by delivery of the goods after offer and acceptance. Applied to reject the argument that no consideration or payment was shown.
• Frame-Up as Weak Defense — Frame-up, like alibi, is easily fabricated, difficult to prove, and almost always invoked by drug sellers; to prosper it must be supported by clear and convincing evidence. Applied to disregard the bare denial here.
• Positive Testimony Prevails Over Denial; Police Presumption of Regularity — Greater weight is accorded positive prosecution testimony over the accused's negative denial, and police officers are presumed to have performed duties regularly absent proof of improper motive. Applied to credit Artizona and Peralta and to sustain findings on credibility, to which appellate deference is given.
• Minor Inconsistencies — Contradictions not on material points, and minor contradictions not affecting basic credibility of the evidence as a whole, are not fatal. Applied to excuse discrepancies on affidavit date and house number or owner where the informer familiar with the place guided the buyer.

• "Instigation is a "trap for the unwary innocent." Entrapment is a trap for the unwary criminal (Cabrera v. Judge Pajares, Adm. Mat. R-278-RTJ & R 309-RTJ, May 30, 1986, En Banc, Per Curiam, 142 SCRA 124)." — States the canonical distinction between the two police operations and why only instigation exempts from liability.
• "Entrapment is no bar to prosecution and conviction while in instigation, the defendant would have to be acquitted (People v. Lapatha, 167 SCRA 159)." — Articulates the divergent legal effects applied to affirm the conviction here.
• "The mere act of selling or even acting as broker in the sale of marijuana and other prohibited drugs consummates the crime (People v. Madarang, 147 SCRA 123 [1987])." — Defines the consummation rule under Section 4 relied upon to hold delivery sufficient without proof of ownership.

• People vs. Sanchez, G.R. No. 77588, May 12, 1989 — Cited as authority that the buy-bust acts constituted entrapment not prohibited by law.
• People vs. Borja, G.R. No. 71838, February 26, 1990 — Cited as additional authority supporting entrapment in buy-bust operations.
• Cabrera vs. Judge Pajares, Adm. Mat. R-278-RTJ & R 309-RTJ, May 30, 1986, En Banc, Per Curiam, 142 SCRA 124 — Cited for the classic formulation distinguishing instigation from entrapment.
• People vs. Natipravat, 145 SCRA 483 [1986] — Followed for the rule that police may feign solicitation to catch habitual offenders and that presence during negotiation and delivery shows common purpose; also cited on instigation making the instigator co-principal.
• People vs. Madarang, 147 SCRA 123 [1987] — Followed for the rule that mere sale or brokering consummates the crime and that submissive conduct upon arrest undermines innocence.
• People vs. Tejada, G.R. No. 81520, February 21, 1989; People vs. Macuto, G.R. No. 80112, August 25, 1989 — Followed for the rules that consummation requires only the selling transaction and that absence of marked money is not fatal where the drug was presented.

• Section 4, Article II, Republic Act No. 6425 — Punishes unauthorized sale, distribution, delivery and giving away of prohibited drugs including marijuana; applied to convict upon proof of agreement to sell ten kilos at P700.00 per kilo and delivery of the sack confirmed positive for marijuana.
• Rule 131, Section 5(m), Rules of Court — Presumes official duty regularly performed; applied to give full faith and credit to NARCOM officers absent shown improper motive or frame-up.
• Article 29, Revised Penal Code, as amended — Governs crediting of preventive imprisonment in service of sentence; applied in directing credit for appellant's preventive detention.

Melencio-Herrera, J., Padilla, J., Sarmiento, J., Regalado, J. No separate concurring reasoning was stated beyond concurrence.