EXEMPTING CIRCUMSTANCE INSTIGATION vs ENTRAPMENT

Surallah Reyes

Download with Google Download with Facebook

or download with email

EXEMPTING CIRCUMSTANCE INSTIGATION vs ENTRAPMENT

DOWNLOAD

EXEMPTING CIRCUMSTANCES:

On Instigation and EntrapmentINSTIGATION ENTRAPMENTAs a method

A method employed by a police officer to

induce a person

 tocommit a crime.A method by which law enforcers employedmeans, methods and forms to apprehend
acriminal who is about to commit or is in theprocess of committing a crime.

Intention to committhe crime

The person induced does not have the intention to commit crime.The accused is not predisposed to
commit crime, he is merelyenticed or lured or talked into committing the crime. (People vs.Bartolome,
G.R. 191726, February 6, 2013)Inherent in a person subject to entrapment theintention to commit
crime.The accused is predisposed to commit crime.

Origin of seed ofmalice

Comes from the public officer who induces the accused to commitcrime; seed of malice was planted by
the public officer.The criminal intent originates in the mind of the instigator and theaccused is lured into
the commission of the offense charged in orderto prosecute him.Nobody induces or prods the accused
intocommitting the offense.The original design to commit crime comes fromthe accused.
Idea to commit thecrime

Came from the police officer. Criminal has already decided to commit thecrime, and the police officers

merely introducedmeans, or devises, in order to apprehend thecriminal.

Criminal liability

Both inducer or instigator [police officer] and the induced [theperson instigated] are not criminally
liableEntrapped person is criminally liable.

As to whether beingan absolutory cause

An absolutory cause.It absolves the accused of any guilt, given the spontaneous moralrevulsion from
using the powers of the government to beguileinnocent but ductile (docile, gullible) persons into lapses
that theymay otherwise resist. (People vs. Bartolome)Not an absolutory cause.

“Mere deception by the detective will not shield

defendant,

if the offense was committed byhim free from the influence or the instigationof the detective

.” Cited in People vs. Lua Chu

and Uy Se Tieng

As bar againstprosecution andconviction

Accused must be acquitted Cannot bar prosecution and conviction

As to its legality as amethod

Not legal A legitimate procedure
 

EXEMPTING CIRCUMSTANCES:

On Instigation and EntrapmentAs to quantum ofevidence

Clear and convincing evidence

indicating the lawmen’s ill motive

and irregular performance of duty. (People vs. Bartolome)

Examples Buy-bust operation

in apprehending violators ofRA 9165.

Nature:
 (People vs. Bartolome)In a buy-bust operation, the pusher sells thecontraband to another posing as a
buyer; oncethe transaction is consummated, the pusher isvalidly arrested because he is committing or
has just committed a crime in the presence of abuyer.

General rule

under RA9165 (People vs.Bartolome):1.

A buy-bust operation, considered as aform of entrapment, is a valid means ofarresting violators of RA

9165.

It is an effective way of apprehendinglaw offenders in the act of committing acrime.

In a buy-bust operation the idea tocommit a crime

originates from theoffender

, without anybody inducing orprodding him to commit the offense.

Decoy solicitation

(People vs. Bartolome)

A police officer’s act of soliciting drugs from the

accused during a buy-bust operation is

notprohibited by law

 and

does not render invalidthe buy-bust operation

.
 

EXEMPTING CIRCUMSTANCES:

On Instigation and Entrapment

The sale of contraband is a kind ofoffense habitually committed, and thesolicitation simply furnishes
evidence of

the criminal’s purpose of conduct.



A decoy solicitation is not tantamountto inducement or instigation. (Peoplevs. Sta.Maria)

Prior surveillance IS NOT NECESSARY

to rendera buy-bust operation

legitimate

, especiallywhen the buy-bust team is

accompanied to thetarget area by the informant

. (People vs.Bartolome)Defenses of

frame-up and extortion

 to becredited at all

must be established with CLEARand CONVINCING evidence.Presumption against instigation:

 It is always good law to presume that [the police officers] have performed their officialduties in a
regular manner. (People vs. Bartolome)Presumption becomes

conclusive

 for lack of contravention. (People vs. Bartolome)

Entrapment

was defined as the conception and planning of an offense by an officer, and his procurement of its
commission by one who wouldnot have perpetrated it except for the trickery, persuasion or fraud of the
officer. (Sorrells v. United States, 287 U.S. 435, 1932)To raise entrapment of defense:1.

Use the

“subjective”

 or

“origin of intent”

 test to determine whether entrapment actually occurred. It is laid down in Sorrells vs. UnitedStates;