Case No.

154
INSTIGNATION VS. ENTRAPMENT
People vs. Dumagay, G.R. No. 216753, February 07, 2018
MAIN POINT:
A buy bust operation is a form of entrapment used to apprehend drug peddlers. It is
considered valid as long as it passes the "objective test," which demands that 'the
details of the purported transaction during the buy-bust operation must be clearly and
adequately shown. In this case, the details of transaction was established from the initial
contact to the consummation of the sale.
FACTS:
Confidential Informant (CI) reported that a certain "Buboy," later identified as appellant
was selling morphine. Police Chief Inspector Lacerna immediately instructed to confirm
the report. On that same day, the CI called up the appellant to buy morphine and
agreed to meet them at about 7:00 p.m at Suterville Intersection. The appellant arrived
on time and contracted the orders of 20 vials of Morphine. They agreed to meet the next
day near Western Mindanao Command (WESMINCOM). PO3 Jiminea and the CI
returned to their office to confirm the report. PCI Lacerna then informed SPO4 Rosales,
the team leader of the SOG to prepare for an operation.
During the briefing, PO3 Jimenea was given the buy-bust money and agreed that the
prearranged signal would be a "thumbs up" sign. At around 10:00 a.m. that day,
appellant contacted him and informed him that the morphine was ready for delivery at
noon time in the vicinity of WESMINCOM. He left ahead of the team while the other
members followed and proceeded to the vicinity of WESMINCOM and positioned
themselves at the vicinity of Paradise Bakery. When appellant arrived on board his red
motorcycle, appellant approached him and brought him to a corner so as not to be seen
by passers-by. When appellant asked for the money, he gave him the white envelope
containing the marked money. The appellant in turn, took from his pocket the morphine
placed inside a plastic bag after checking if the 20 vials were indeed morphine, he
immediately made a "thumbs up" sign. SPO4 Rosales, PO3 Lamberte and the other
operatives immediately ran towards them to arrest appellant. When appellant was about
to flee, he revealed himself as a police officer and immediately arrested the appellant.
The appellant tried to escape and drew his gun. They grappled for the gun causing
them to fall on the ground. Appellant was subdued due to the timely arrival of SPO4
Rosales and PO3 Lamberte. SPO4 Rosales confiscated the .45 pistol and the marked
money from the pocket of appellant. He was brought to the PNP office in Camp
Abendan, Mercedes. He marked the seized items with his initials "JRCJ" and turned
them over to SPO1 Gallego, their investigating officer. The Appellant appealed the RTC
Decision arguing that there was no valid buy-bust operation.
ISSUE:
Whether or not the buy-bust operation was valid.
ANSWER:
Yes. CA correctly found that there was a valid buy bust operation as the prosecution
was able to establish details of the transaction from the initial contact of the poseur-
buyer and the appellant up to the consummation of the sale by the delivery of the
morphine. The identities of the poseur-buyer and the appellant as the seller of the
morphine, and the details of the procedure employed by the police operatives in
conducting; the buy-bust were clearly established by the prosecution.
CONCLUSION:
The operation held in this case complies with the objective test of the valid buy-bust
operation. Wherein the details of transaction from initial contact to the consummation of
the sale was established. Also a police officer's act of soliciting drugs from the accused
during a buy-bust operation, or what is known as a 'decoy solicitation,' is not prohibited
by law and does not render the buy-bust operation invalid.
 Case No. 155
INSTIGNATION VS. ENTRAPMENT
People vs. Cabacaba, GR No. 171310, Jul 09, 2008
MAIN POINT:
The buy-bust operation is a form of an entrapment operation. In this case, Cabacaba
was already under surveillance when a buy-bus operation was formed. No search
warrant is needed in the operation since it was an entrapment operation not a search.
FACTS:
A team was formed to conduct a buy-bust operation in Cubao, Quezon City. An informant
reported that Sanny Cabacaba had been selling drugs in a residence in Barangay
Rodriguez in Cubao. The team was composed of PO2 Ocampo as poseur buyer, with
PO2 Jerry Sanchez and PO1 Glyn Fallorin as back-up. PO2 Ocampo and the informant
proceeded to a house. They asked the appellant to sell to them shabu worth P300.
Appellant then handed over two sachets of shabu to PO2 Ocampo who then gave
appellant the marked money. PO2 Ocampo examined the contents of the two sachets.
After determining that they contained shabu, he tapped the shoulder of appellant. This
was a signal to his two companions on the look-out that the sale of shabu had just been
consummated. As his men rushed to the place of the transaction, PO2 Ocampo got hold
of appellant. The latter was able to break free from him and run into the house in front of
which the sale took place.The police chased the appellant who was then collared by PO2
Ocampo inside the house. Two persons sitting on a sofa were searched like appellant.
The search on one of them, who was identified as Elena Blancha, yielded a sachet of
shabu. The other male person yielded no contraband. The police recovered both the
P200 and P100 bills earlier received by Cabacaba from PO2 Ocampo. PO2 Ocampo
testified that the accused and Elena were live-in partners. The appellant Cabacaba
contended the legitimacy of the buy-bust operation since no warrant had been issued.
ISSUE:
Whether or not buy-bust operation was valid although warrant was not issued.
ANSWER:
Yes. The Court ruled that a buy-bust operation is a form of entrapment which has
repeatedly been accepted to be a valid means of arresting violators of the Dangerous
Drugs Law. An arrest made after entrapment does not require a warrant inasmuch as it
is considered a valid warrantless arrest pursuant to Rule 113, Section 5(a), of the Rules
of Court.
CONCLUSION:
The offender is already under surveillance when the buy-bust operation was conducted.
No search warrant was needed in the case since the buy-bust operation conducted was
an entrapment and not a search.