People vs. Tapere

In a prosecution for illegal sale of dangerous drugs, a buy-bust operation constitutes valid entrapment — not absolutory instigation — when the accused’s criminal intent originates from his own mind and the police merely furnished an opportunity to commit the offense he was already predisposed to commit.

The Philippine Drug Enforcement Agency (PDEA) in Iligan City had received frequent complaints from residents of Purok San Antonio that Arnold Tapere was selling shabu in the area. He was included in the PDEA’s drug watch list, and a neighbor, SPO2 Diosdado Cabahug, had warned him to stop. An informant, Gabriel Salgado, reported Tapere’s continuing drug pushing activities. To verify the report, PDEA agents conducted surveillance and a test buy on August 30, 31, and September 1, 2002, which confirmed Tapere’s involvement. A buy-bust operation was then planned for September 2, 2002. A ₱100.00 bill was certified by the Office of the City Prosecutor as the buy-bust money. Salgado acted as the poseur buyer. At around 7:10 p.m., the team proceeded to Alcuizar Avenue, San Antonio, where Tapere was selling lanzones. Salgado approached him, and after a brief conversation, handed over the marked money and received a heat-sealed plastic sachet containing shabu. On a pre-arranged signal, the agents arrested Tapere, recovered the buy-bust money, and seized three additional sachets of shabu from his pocket.

• Prior Surveillance and Test Buy. PDEA Iligan City had placed Tapere on its drug watch list after repeated complaints from residents of Purok San Antonio. SPO2 Diosdado Cabahug, a neighbor, had personally warned him to cease his illegal activities. Informant Gabriel Salgado reported that Tapere continued to push shabu. From August 30 to September 1, 2002, PDEA agents conducted surveillance and a test buy that confirmed the report. A buy-bust operation was then set for September 2, 2002.

• Preparation for the Buy-Bust. The PDEA team presented a ₱100.00 bill (Serial No. YU859011) to City Prosecutor II Roberto Z. Albulario, Jr., who issued a certification identifying it as the buy-bust money. During a pre-operation briefing attended by Team Leader SPO2 Edgardo Englatiera, SPO3 Jaime Bastatas, SPO2 George Salo, SPO2 Cabahug, PO1 Amado Margaja, and Salgado, the informant was instructed to act as the poseur buyer.

• The Transaction. At about 7:10 p.m. on September 2, 2002, the team positioned themselves near the target area along Alcuizar Avenue, where Tapere was selling lanzones outside a row of stalls. Salgado approached Tapere. The agents observed a brief conversation, Salgado handing over money, and Tapere taking a small heat-sealed plastic sachet from his pocket and giving it to Salgado. Salgado then gave the pre-arranged signal (scratching his head), indicating the sale was consummated.

• Arrest and Seizure. The agents rushed in, identified themselves, and arrested Tapere. A search of his person yielded the marked ₱100.00 bill from his right pocket. Tapere voluntarily produced three more sachets of shabu from his pocket and handed them to SPO2 Bastatas. The team immediately brought Tapere and the four sachets (marked “AT-1” to “AT-4”) to the PDEA office in Camp Cabili. Team Leader Englatiera prepared a request for laboratory examination that same night. Due to the lateness of the hour, PO1 Margaja delivered the request and the sachets to the PNP Crime Laboratory in Iligan City the following day. Senior Police Inspector Mary Leoncy M. Jabonillo conducted the examination and issued Chemistry Report No. D-083-02 dated September 4, 2002, confirming all four sachets contained methamphetamine hydrochloride (shabu), with the following weights: “AT-1” — 0.09 g; “AT-2” — 0.51 g; “AT-3” — 0.03 g; “AT-4” — 0.10 g.

• Defense Version. Tapere denied selling shabu and claimed he had merely run an errand. He testified that at around 6:30–7:00 p.m. on September 2, 2002, while vending lanzones, he was approached by Salgado, a neighbor of four years whom he knew to be a drug user on probation and with whom he had previously sniffed shabu. Salgado asked him to buy shabu for Salgado’s personal use. Tapere initially refused but ultimately agreed, explaining he did not want trouble or to anger Salgado. With money provided by Salgado, he rode a jeepney to Saray, bought one sachet of shabu, returned after about an hour, and handed it to Salgado at a nearby store. Shortly after, five armed men (two of whom he recognized as Englatiera and Cabahug) surrounded him, frisked him, handcuffed him, and took him to the PDEA office. He denied being in possession of any other sachets.

• Trial Court’s Findings. The RTC rejected Tapere’s narrative, finding that he had not shown any overpowering influence or debt of gratitude that would render him incapable of refusing Salgado’s request. The court characterized the buy-bust as methodical and legitimate.

• Instigation as Absolutory Cause: Tapere maintained that his arrest was the product of instigation, not entrapment. He argued that poseur buyer Salgado, acting as a covert PDEA agent, induced him to purchase shabu for Salgado’s use. Without that inducement, he would not have committed the crime. Because instigation is an absolutory cause under criminal law, he contended that he was entitled to an acquittal.

• Valid Entrapment: The People countered that the buy-bust operation was a legitimate entrapment. The criminal intent to sell shabu originated from Tapere’s own mind, as demonstrated by the prior surveillance, test buy, and his inclusion in the drug watch list. All elements of illegal sale were proved beyond reasonable doubt, the integrity of the seized drugs was preserved, and the non-presentation of the poseur buyer did not weaken the prosecution’s case because the buy-bust team members witnessed the consummated transaction.

• Instigation vs. Entrapment: Whether Tapere’s arrest resulted from instigation — an absolutory cause — rather than a valid entrapment, thereby warranting his acquittal.

• Instigation vs. Entrapment: The buy-bust operation constituted a valid entrapment, not instigation. The prosecution established the concurrence of all elements of illegal sale of shabu under Section 5, Article II of R.A. No. 9165: identity of buyer and seller, the object (one sachet of shabu later confirmed by laboratory examination), the consideration (the ₱100.00 bill certified by the prosecutor), and the delivery of the drug and payment. The difference between entrapment and instigation lies in the origin of criminal intent: in entrapment, the mens rea originates from the mind of the accused; in instigation, the law officer conceives the crime and induces the accused to carry it out. The accused had been on the PDEA drug watch list, had been the subject of surveillance and a test buy, and had been warned to stop. Salgado merely offered to buy a quantity of shabu; Tapere readily accepted. His explanation that he could not refuse out of fear of displeasing Salgado was implausible and unsupported by any showing of overpowering influence. The decision to peddle shabu emanated from his own criminal predisposition; thus, there was no inducement that would nullify the operation. Substantial compliance with the custody requirements of Section 21 of R.A. No. 9165 further ensured the integrity of the corpus delicti.

• Entrapment vs. Instigation — Instigation occurs when a peace officer induces a person to commit a crime; without the inducement, the crime would not be committed. It is an absolutory cause grounded on public policy because the officer would otherwise be a co-principal. Entrapment signifies the ways and means devised by a peace officer to apprehend a person who has already committed a crime; with or without the entrapment, the crime has been committed already. Entrapment is not a mitigating circumstance and is legally sanctioned. The decisive test is the origin of criminal intent: in entrapment, the mens rea originates from the mind of the criminal; in instigation, the law officer conceives the commission of the crime and suggests it to the accused, who adopts the idea and carries it into execution.

• Elements of Illegal Sale of Dangerous Drugs under Section 5, R.A. No. 9165 — The prosecution must prove beyond reasonable doubt: (a) the identity of the buyer and seller, the object, and the consideration; and (b) the delivery of the thing sold and payment therefor. The offense is consummated at the moment the buyer receives the drug from the seller. The corpus delicti must be presented in court.

• “Instigation takes place when a peace officer induces a person to commit a crime. Without the inducement, the crime would not be committed. … On the other hand, entrapment signifies the ways and means devised by a peace officer to entrap or apprehend a person who has committed a crime. With or without the entrapment, the crime has been committed already.” — This passage encapsulates the fundamental distinction that determines culpability in buy-bust cases.

• “The difference between the two lies in the origin of the criminal intent – in entrapment, the mens rea originates from the mind of the criminal, but in instigation, the law officer conceives the commission of the crime and suggests it to the accused, who adopts the idea and carries it into execution.” — The Court’s articulation of the controlling test for distinguishing a valid operation from an impermissible instigation.

• People v. Macabalang, G.R. No. 168694, November 27, 2006, 508 SCRA 282 — Cited for the elements of illegal sale of dangerous drugs and the requirement to present the corpus delicti.

• Araneta v. Court of Appeals, L-46638, July 9, 1986, 142 SCRA 534, and Cabrera v. Pajares, Adm. Matters Nos. R-278-RTJ and R-309-RTJ, May 30, 1986, 142 SCRA 127 — Cited in the treatise as authorities for the distinction between entrapment and instigation.

• People v. B[artolome?], G.R. No. 179150, June 17, 2008, 554 SCRA 741 — Relied upon to underscore that Tapere’s decision to peddle shabu emanated from his own mind, not from any prodding by the poseur buyer.

• Section 5, Article II, Republic Act No. 9165 — Defines and penalizes the illegal sale, trading, administration, dispensation, delivery, distribution, and transportation of dangerous drugs. Applied as the substantive offense proved against Tapere, with the prescribed penalty of life imprisonment to death and a fine of ₱500,000 to ₱10,000,000.

• Section 21(1), Republic Act No. 9165 — Prescribes the procedure for custody and disposition of confiscated dangerous drugs, requiring immediate physical inventory and photographing in the presence of the accused, media, DOJ representative, and an elected public official. The buy-bust team was found to have substantially complied, having first secured a certification of the buy-bust money from the city prosecutor and promptly requesting laboratory examination, thus preserving the integrity of the corpus delicti. The Implementing Rules had not yet taken effect at the time of the operation.

Chief Justice Maria Lourdes P. A. Sereno, Associate Justice Teresita J. Leonardo-De Castro, Associate Justice Martin S. Villarama, Jr., and Associate Justice Bienvenido L. Reyes concurred.