GR 84960; (September, 1989) (Digest)
G.R. No. 84960 September 1, 1989
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, vs. EFREN ASIO y MOLINTAS, accused-appellant.
FACTS
Efren Asio y Molintas was charged with violating the Dangerous Drugs Act for attempting to sell, deliver, distribute, and transport 3,500 grams of dried marijuana leaves in Baguio City on December 4, 1985. The prosecution evidence established that NARCOM agents, acting on a tip about rampant marijuana selling in Wright Park, conducted a buy-bust operation. Agent Freddie Cartel posed as a buyer, approached the appellant, and conversed with him. Appellant left and later returned carrying two sacks. Upon his return, the backup agents rushed in, arrested him, and confiscated the sacks, which were later confirmed by forensic analysis to contain marijuana flowering tops. The trial court found Asio guilty beyond reasonable doubt and sentenced him to life imprisonment and a fine.
ISSUE
The core issues raised on appeal were: (1) whether the police conduct constituted illegal instigation rather than lawful entrapment; (2) whether the warrantless arrest and seizure violated constitutional rights; and (3) whether the conviction was for an offense different from that charged in the Information.
RULING
The Supreme Court affirmed the conviction. On the first issue, the Court distinguished entrapment from instigation, ruling the operation was a valid entrapment. Entrapment involves trapping a person already engaged in criminal activity, while instigation induces an innocent person to commit a crime. The records showed no inducement; the NARCOM agents, who did not know Asio beforehand, merely provided an opportunity for him to commit an offense he was already predisposed to commit. The testimonies of the law enforcers were accorded the presumption of regularity in their duties.
Regarding the warrantless arrest and seizure, the Court held it was lawful. A buy-bust operation is a recognized exception to the warrant requirement. Asio was caught in flagrante delicto—actually delivering the prohibited drugs—which justified a warrantless arrest and the contemporaneous seizure of the marijuana as evidence. Finally, the Court found no discrepancy in the offense charged. The Information properly alleged a violation of Section 4, Article II of R.A. No. 6425 , as amended. The reference to Section 21(b) merely specified that the acts constituted an attempt to commit the offense under Section 4, and the penalty remained the same. Any alleged defect in the Information was waived for not being raised in a motion to quash before arraignment.