G.R. No. 178065 ; February 20, 2013
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-Appellee, vs. ARNOLD TAPERE y POLPOL, Accused-Appellant.

FACTS

Accused-appellant Arnold Tapere was charged with illegal sale of shabu under Section 5, Article II of R.A. No. 9165 . The prosecution evidence established that, based on a report from a confidential informant and prior surveillance, PDEA agents conducted a buy-bust operation against Tapere, who was on their drug watch list. A pre-operation briefing was held, and the informant acted as poseur-buyer using a marked ₱100 bill certified by the City Prosecutor. During the operation on September 2, 2002, in Iligan City, the informant successfully purchased a plastic sachet from Tapere. Upon the pre-arranged signal, agents arrested Tapere, recovering the marked money from him. Tapere then voluntarily surrendered three additional sachets. Laboratory examination confirmed all four sachets contained methamphetamine hydrochloride.
Tapere denied the accusation, claiming he was merely selling lanzones when the informant, a known drug user, approached him. He alleged the informant instigated the crime by insisting on buying drugs, and when he refused, the informant placed the sachets in his pocket and signaled the waiting agents. He argued his arrest was the result of instigation, which allegedly absolves him of criminal liability.

ISSUE

Whether the accused-appellant’s defense of instigation is valid, thereby warranting his acquittal for the illegal sale of dangerous drugs.

RULING

The Supreme Court affirmed the conviction, ruling that the defense of instigation is untenable. The Court meticulously distinguished between instigation and entrapment. Instigation occurs when law enforcers induce an otherwise innocent person to commit a crime he had no prior intention to commit, which serves as a complete defense. Entrapment, however, is a valid means of apprehending a criminal in flagrante delicto; it involves the employment of ways and means to trap and capture a person who is already engaged in or has made preparations to commit a crime.
The legal logic applied is that the buy-bust operation here constituted a legitimate entrapment, not instigation. The evidence showed Tapere was already under surveillance and on the drug watch list based on persistent reports of his drug-pushing activities. The operation merely provided an opportunity for him to commit the crime, confirming his existing criminal disposition. The Court found the prosecution successfully proved all elements of illegal sale: the identity of the buyer and seller, the object and consideration, and the delivery. The defense’s claim of instigation was belied by the established facts showing Tapere was a pre-existing drug offender, not an innocent person induced by the informant. Therefore, the valid entrapment led to a lawful arrest and a sustainable conviction.