G.R. No. 179029 ; August 12, 2010
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Appellee, vs. FELIMON PAGADUAN y TAMAYO, Appellant.

FACTS

The prosecution’s evidence established that a buy-bust operation was conducted against appellant Felimon Pagaduan based on information that he was selling illegal drugs. PO3 Peter Almarez acted as the poseur-buyer and met with Pagaduan in Solano, Nueva Vizcaya. Pagaduan handed over a heat-sealed plastic sachet containing white crystalline substance in exchange for two marked ₱100 bills. Upon PO3 Almarez’s pre-arranged signal, the backup team arrested Pagaduan, recovered the marked money from his pocket, and confiscated the sachet. The substance was later confirmed by forensic examination to be methamphetamine hydrochloride or shabu.
The defense presented a different narrative, claiming instigation. Pagaduan testified that he was invited by an acquaintance to meet a police officer to become an “asset.” He was instead apprehended, handcuffed, and money was planted on him. He argued that the police entrapped him into a crime he would not have otherwise committed, asserting that the operation was illegitimate.

ISSUE

Whether the Court of Appeals erred in affirming the conviction of the appellant for illegal sale of dangerous drugs, despite his defense of instigation and alleged irregularities in the buy-bust operation.

RULING

The Supreme Court affirmed the conviction. The Court meticulously distinguished between entrapment and instigation. Entrapment, which occurred here, is a legitimate means to apprehend a criminal in flagrante delicto. Instigation, which the defense failed to prove, involves the inducement of an innocent person to commit a crime. The police received prior information about Pagaduan’s drug-selling activities, and the operation was planned accordingly. The defense of instigation was unsubstantiated by clear and convincing evidence.
The Court further ruled that the prosecution successfully established all elements of illegal sale: the identity of the buyer and seller, the object and consideration, and the delivery of the illegal drug. The integrity and evidentiary value of the seized shabu were preserved through an unbroken chain of custody. The marking of the sachet at the scene, the proper request for laboratory examination, and the forensic chemist’s positive findings constituted a clear chain. The minor delay of two days in submitting the specimen to the crime lab, under the circumstances presented, did not break this chain or cast doubt on the evidence’s integrity. The appellant’s guilt was thus proven beyond reasonable doubt.