People vs. Sta. Maria

A buy-bust operation constitutes valid entrapment, not instigation, where the idea and resolve to commit the crime originate from the accused, and the mere fact that an agreement to sell was reached prior to the actual sale does not prove instigation. Additionally, non-compliance with Sections 21 and 86 of Republic Act No. 9165 does not automatically render an arrest illegal or the seized evidence inadmissible, particularly when the objections regarding the safekeeping of evidence are raised for the first time on appeal.

P/Chief Insp. Noli Pacheco received an intelligence report about the illegal drug activities of a certain "Fael," later identified as appellant Rafael Sta. Maria, in San Rafael, Bulacan. A surveillance team secured a confidential asset who negotiated a drug deal with appellant for the purchase of ₱200 worth of shabu on November 27, 2002, to be consummated on November 29, 2002. A buy-bust team was formed, with PO1 Rhoel Ventura acting as poseur-buyer provided with two marked ₱100-bills. At the appointed time, PO1 Ventura and the informant went to appellant's house, where PO1 Ventura was introduced as a prospective buyer, handed the marked bills to appellant, and received a plastic sachet of shabu in return. PO1 Ventura then lit his cigarette lighter as a pre-arranged signal, prompting appellant's arrest. Appellant denied the sale, claiming police officers barged into his house, frisked him, and arrested him without cause.

• The Buy-Bust Operation: On November 27, 2002, police received intelligence about appellant's drug activities. An informant negotiated a ₱200 shabu purchase. On November 29, 2002, PO1 Ventura and the informant went to appellant's house. PO1 Ventura was introduced as a buyer, gave two marked ₱100 bills, and received a sachet of shabu. PO1 Ventura signaled the team, and appellant was arrested. Zedric dela Cruz was also arrested inside the house for sniffing shabu. The substance tested positive for 0.041 gram of methylamphetamine hydrochloride.
• The Defense's Version: Appellant claimed he was at home with Zedric dela Cruz, who was offering him a cellphone and collecting a debt. Three men barged in, announced they were police, frisked them, and searched the house. When appellant complained, police accused him of selling shabu. He and Zedric were handcuffed, brought to a vehicle, and pressured to become police assets. Appellant refused an offer to buy drugs from him, suspecting a trap.

• Instigation, Not Entrapment: Appellant argued that the two-day gap between the informant's initial negotiation (Nov 27) and the buy-bust (Nov 29) proved instigation, claiming the informant induced him to sell drugs and that without this inducement, he would not have produced the drugs.
• Violation of Section 86, RA 9165 (PDEA Involvement): Appellant contended that the evidence was obtained in violation of Section 86 because the buy-bust operation lacked PDEA involvement, rendering the arrest illegal and the evidence inadmissible.
• Violation of Section 21, RA 9165 (Chain of Custody): Appellant insisted that the prosecution's failure to show strict compliance with Section 21 regarding the custody and disposition of evidence renders the seized items inadmissible.

• Valid Entrapment: Respondent countered that the prior agreement and subsequent sale suggested habitual dealing, not instigation, as the idea to sell originated from appellant.
• PDEA Involvement Not Mandatory for Validity: Respondent argued that Section 86 is an administrative provision designating PDEA as the lead agency, but it does not strip the PNP of its authority to conduct anti-drug operations and effect lawful arrests.
• Substantial Compliance with Section 21: Respondent maintained that non-compliance with Section 21 does not void the seizure if the integrity and evidentiary value of the seized items are preserved, and noted that the Section 21 objection was raised for the first time on appeal.

• Entrapment vs. Instigation: Whether the buy-bust operation constituted instigation rather than valid entrapment.
• PDEA Involvement: Whether the absence of PDEA involvement in the buy-bust operation renders the arrest illegal and the evidence inadmissible under Section 86 of RA 9165.
• Chain of Custody: Whether non-compliance with Section 21 of RA 9165 renders the seized evidence inadmissible.

• Entrapment vs. Instigation: The operation constituted valid entrapment. The mere fact that the agreement was made on November 27 and the sale occurred on November 29 does not prove instigation; rather, it suggests habitual dealing. In entrapment, the resolve to commit the crime originates from the accused. Appellant failed to present evidence beyond self-serving declarations that the informant induced him.
• PDEA Involvement: The absence of PDEA did not violate appellant's right against illegal arrest. Section 86 is an administrative provision designating PDEA as the lead agency but does not deprive the PNP, NBI, or other law enforcement agencies of their power to effect lawful arrests. The law is silent on the consequence of failing to involve PDEA, and such silence cannot be interpreted to invalidate arrests by other agencies.
• Chain of Custody: Non-compliance with Section 21 was not fatal. The IRR of RA 9165 explicitly provides that non-compliance under justifiable grounds, as long as the integrity and evidentiary value of the seized items are preserved, does not render the seizure void. Furthermore, appellant failed to raise objections regarding the safekeeping of the items during trial, raising the issue for the first time on appeal, which is prohibited.

• Entrapment vs. Instigation — In entrapment, the means originates from the mind of the criminal; the idea and resolve to commit the crime come from him, and the entrapper merely resorts to ways and means to trap and capture the lawbreaker. In instigation, the law enforcer conceives the commission of the crime and induces the would-be defendant to adopt the idea and carry it into execution. Entrapment does not exempt the criminal from liability; instigation does. Applied: The prior agreement to sell did not prove instigation but rather suggested habitual dealing, as the idea to sell originated from appellant.
• Objection to Evidence on Appeal — Objection to evidence cannot be raised for the first time on appeal; a party desiring the court to reject evidence must object at the time it is offered. Applied: Appellant's failure to question the safekeeping of items or compliance with Section 21 before the trial court precluded raising the issue on appeal.

• "In entrapment, the entrapper resorts to ways and means to trap and capture a lawbreaker while executing his criminal plan. In instigation, the instigator practically induces the would-be-defendant into committing the offense, and himself becomes a co-principal."
• "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 its commission."
• "Objection to evidence cannot be raised for the first time on appeal; when a party desires the court to reject the evidence offered, he must so state in the form of objection."

• People v. Mateo, G.R. Nos. 147678-87 — Modified the Rules of Court to require transfer of appeals from RTC imposing death, reclusion perpetua, or life imprisonment to the CA before elevation to the Supreme Court. Followed to justify the transfer of the case to the CA.
• People v. Marcos, G.R. No. 83325 — Defined the distinction between entrapment and instigation. Followed.
• People v. Lua Chu and Uy Se Tieng, 56 Phil. 44 — Held that decoy solicitation is no defense, especially for offenses habitually committed. Followed.
• People v. Ramon Chua Uy, G.R. No. 128046 — Stated that objection to evidence cannot be raised for the first time on appeal. Followed.

• Section 5, Article II, Republic Act No. 9165 — Penalizes the sale, trading, administration, dispensation, delivery, distribution, and transportation of dangerous drugs with life imprisonment to death and a fine ranging from ₱500,000.00 to ₱10,000,000.00. Applied as the substantive offense for which appellant was convicted.
• Section 21, Republic Act No. 9165 — Prescribes the procedure for the custody and disposition of confiscated dangerous drugs, requiring physical inventory and photography in the presence of the accused, counsel, media, DOJ, and elected public official. Applied: Non-compliance was held not fatal under the IRR if integrity is preserved, and objections were raised too late.
• Section 21(a), IRR of Republic Act No. 9165 — Provides a saving clause that non-compliance with Section 21 under justifiable grounds, provided the integrity and evidentiary value of the seized items are preserved, shall not render the seizure void and invalid. Applied to excuse the procedural lapses.
• Section 86, Republic Act No. 9165 — Abolishes the Narcotics Group of the PNP and designates the PDEA as the lead agency in drug-related investigations, while allowing other agencies to continue performing tasks until fully integrated. Applied: Interpreted as an administrative provision not divesting the PNP of its power to effect lawful arrests.

Reynato S. Puno (Chief Justice, Chairperson), Angelina Sandoval-Gutierrez, Renato C. Corona, Adolfo S. Azcuna.