Veloso, Ralph Nio L.

Atty. Arnold Barba

Legal Writing A
Entrapment:
A. Nature, Concept and Purpose:
According to the Lectic Law Library, the legal definition
of entrapment is wherein A person is entrapped when the
persona is induced or persuaded by law enforcement officers
or their authorized agents to commit a crime that he had no
previous intent to commit.1 And the law as a matter of
policy forbids conviction in such cases.
It is commonly used as a defense to most crimes wherein
the defendant was entrapped into committing a crime by
means of coercion either by a law enforcement officer or by
someone working as an agent of a law enforcer. 2 It is
commonly used as a defense to victimless crimes, such the
disposing or buying illegal drugs or narcotics and other
contraband materials, also in soliciting prostitution and other
unlawful deeds.
On the contrary, entrapment is not present where the wouldbe offender is ready and willing to break the law where the
law enforcement officer merely provides a plausible or
favorable opportunity for the would-be crime doer to commit
a crime. 3
The key aspect of entrapment and what sets it apart from
opportunity is that, Government agents do not entrap
defendants simply by offering them a means for an
opportunity to commit the crime. Judges expect people to
resist any ordinary temptation to violate the law. Whilst in
an entrapment defense, it arises when the enforcers of the
law uses machinations and ploys such as use of threats,
harassment, abuse, fraud, or even flattery to coerce or

1 http://www.lectlaw.com/def/e024.htm
2 http://nationalparalegal.edu/
3 Paul Bergman, J.D. and Sara J. Berman, J.D. The Criminal Law Handbook,
August 2015, 14th Edition
1

induce would-be crime doers to execute the commission of

the crime.4
To clearly differentiate the concept of entrapment from
opportunity, two case examples are given.
Case Example 1. Mary-Anne Berry is charged with selling
illegal drugs to an undercover police officer. Berry testifies
that the drugs were for her personal use and that the reason
she sold some to the officer is that at a party, the officer
falsely said that she wanted some drugs for her mom, who
was in a lot of pain. According to Berry, the officer even
assured Berry that she wasn't a cop and wasn't setting Berry
up. The police officer's actions do not amount to
entrapment. Police officers are allowed to tell lies. The officer
gave Berry an opportunity to break the law, but the officer
did not engage in extreme or overbearing behavior.
Case Example 2. Mary-Anne Berry is charged with selling
illegal drugs to an undercover police officer. Berry testifies
that, "The drugs were for my personal use. For nearly two
weeks, the undercover officer stopped by my apartment and
pleaded with me to sell her some of my stash because her
mom was extremely sick and needed the drugs for pain
relief. I kept refusing. When the officer told me that the
drugs would allow her mom to be comfortable for the few
days she had left to live, I broke down and sold her some
drugs. She immediately arrested me." The undercover
agent's repeated entreaties and lies are sufficiently extreme
to constitute entrapment and result in a not guilty verdict.5
There are two tests used to ascertain whether the defendant
has been entrapped or not, where in foreign countries and
states, they employ either an objective or a subjective
standard to determine whether or not an entrapment has
occurred.
Under the Objective Standard Test, when defendants
offer entrapment evidence jurors decide whether a police

4 Hakimfar, David. The Fight Magazine, Copyright 2013 2016 ||

http://thefightmag.com/2014/08/the-law-08-2014/||
5 Examples taken from: Paul Bergman, J.D. and Sara J. Berman, J.D. The
Criminal Law Handbook August 2015, 14th Edition,
2

officer's actions would have induced a normally law-abiding

person to commit a crime.
Under the Subjective Standard Test, Entrapment
defenses are less likely to succeed under a subjective
standard. The reason is that under a subjective standard,
when a defendant offers entrapment evidence, jurors decide
whether the defendant's predisposition to commit the crime
makes the defendant responsible for his or her actions,
regardless of any government agent's inducements.6
But here in the Philippines, different terminologies are used,
and these terms are Entrapment and Instigation. In
entrapment, ways and means are resorted to for the
purpose of trapping and capturing lawbreakers in the
execution of their criminal plan; nobody induces or prods
him into committing the offense, the law enforcement
officials merely facilitate the apprehension of the criminal by
employing ruses and schemes7. In instigation on the other
hand, instigators practically induce the would-be defendant
into the commission of the offense and become co-principals
themselves.8
Entrapment is employed here in the Philippines as one of the
effective ways of apprehending a criminal in the act of the
commission of the offense. It is usually done by the
authorities through buy bust operations, where it follows a
stringent of rules and procedures as not to violate and
impair the rights of the accused, also to ensure that the
accused will not be acquitted due to a lapse in procedure
done by the authorities performing the said operation, also
there must be transparency in terms of the events that
transpired in the operation.9

6 Paul Bergman, J.D. and Sara J. Berman, J.D. The Criminal Law Handbook
August 2015, 14th Edition,
7 Dansico vs People of the Philippines. G.R. No. 178060, February 23, 2011
8 Reyes, Luis B. The Revised Penal Code, Criminal Law 18 th Edition, Book One.
Rex Printing Co. of 2016
9 Instigation vs. Entrapment, Oct 20, 2015.
http://wayseerphil.blogspot.com/2015/10/instigation-vs-entrapment.html
3

A buy-bust operation is a form of entrapment, which in

recent years has been accepted as valid and effective mode
of arresting violators of the Dangerous Drugs Law 10. It has
been proven to be an effective way of unveiling the identities
of drug dealers and of luring them out of obscurity.11

B. Governing Laws, Statutory Provisions

(1)The authority of the police force to conduct entrapment

operations is in accordance with Section 24, Republic Act
6975, as amended by Republic Act 8551, where:
a. Enforce all laws and ordinances relative to the
protection of lives and properties;
b. Maintain peace and order and take all necessary
steps to ensure public safety;
c. Investigate and prevent crimes, effect the arrest of
criminal offenders, bring offenders to justice and assist
in their prosecution;
d. Exercise the general powers to make arrest, search
and seizure in accordance with the Constitution and
pertinent laws; and
e. Detain an arrested person for a period not beyond
what is
prescribed by law, informing the person so
detained of all his rights under the Constitution. 12
(2) Under Section 5, Rule 113 of the Revised Rules of
Criminal Procedure, a peace officer or a private person may,
without a warrant, arrest a person:
10 People v. Agulay, G.R. No. 181747, September 26, 2008
11 People v. Concepcion, G.R. No. 178876, June 27, 2008
12 R.A No. 6975, December 13, 1990. |
http://www.lawphil.net/statutes/repacts/ra1990/ra_6975_1990.html|
4

(a) When, in his presence, the person to be arrested

has committed, is actually committing, or is
attempting to commit an offense;
(b) When an offense has in fact just been committed,
and he has personal knowledge of facts indicating that
the person to be arrested has committed it; and
(c) When the person to be arrested is a prisoner who
has escaped from a penal establishment or place
where he is
serving final judgment or temporarily
confined while his case is pending, or has escaped
while being transferred from one confinement
to
another.
In cases falling under paragraphs (a) and (b) hereof,
the person arrested without a warrant shall be forthwith
delivered to the nearest police station or jail, and he shall be
proceeded against in accordance with Rule 112, Section 7.13
C. Jurisdiction/Applicable Procedural Rules.
The court takes cognizance of the cases of entrapment in a
very stern manner where they are duty-bound to exercise
extra vigilance in trying these cases and should not allow
themselves to be used as instruments of abuse and injustice
lest innocent persons are made to suffer the unusually
severe penalties.14
In the case of prosecution for the sale of illegal and
dangerous drugs apprehended during entrapment or buy
bust operations, the following essential elements must be
firmly established or proven:
1. That the alleged transaction or sale took place.
2. The corpus delicti or the illicit drug was presented as
evidence.
3. That the buyer and seller were identified by the
witness/es or by the authorities.15
13 People vs. Ruben Montilla, GR No. 123872, January 30, 1998.
14 Valdez v. People, G.R.No. 170180, November 23, 2007
15 People v. De la Cruz, G.R. No. 177222, October 29, 2008
5

It is absolute where as stated in these requisite elements,

that there is a need for the proof that the illegal transaction
actually transpired, with presentation to the court of the
contraband acquired as evidence.
And as to determine whether there was a valid
entrapment or whether procedures were stringently followed
during the duration of the buy bust operation, it is
incumbent upon the courts to make sure that the details of
the operation are clearly and adequately established through
relevant, material and competent evidence. The courts
cannot merely rely on, but must apply with studied restraint,
the presumption of regularity in the performance of official
duty by law enforcement agents.16
Officers and members of law enforcement also follow a
conduct of operation as stated in the Philippine National
Police Revised Manual on Anti-illegal Drugs Operation and
Investigation where all warrantless arrests, searches, and
seizures to be undertaken by PNP members/Anti-Illegal
Drugs Units shall be in accordance with Section 5,
Paragraphs (a) and (b), Rule 113 and Section 13, Rule 126
of the Rules of Court, and relevant Supreme Court
Decisions.17

D. Significant Jurisprudence
It has been established in the People vs. De Guzman 18 case
in determining the credibility of the prosecutions witnesses
regarding the conduct of a legitimate buy-bust operation
where the objective test was utilized wherein:
We therefore stress that the objective test in buy-bust
operation demands that the details of the purported
transaction must be clearly and adequately shown. This
must start from the initial contact between the poseur-buyer
and the pusher, the offer for purchase, the promise or
16 Valdez v. People, G.R.No. 170180, November 23, 2007
17 Revised Philipiine National Police Manual on Anti-Illegal Drugs Operations
and Investigation, Copyright of 2010, Revised 2014. (For the complete list on the
guidelines, Refer to page 24).
18 People vs De Guzman, G.R. No. 151205, June 9, 2004.
6

payment of the consideration until the consummation of the

sale by the delivery of the illegal drug subject of the sale.
The manner by which the initial contact was made, whether
or not through an informant, the offer to purchase the drug,
the payment of the buy-bust money, and the delivery of
the illegal drug, whether to the informant alone or the police
officer, must be the subject of strict scrutiny by courts to
insure that law-abiding citizens are not unlawfully induced to
commit an offense.
In People vs. Delia Bayani19 and People vs. Rafael Sta
Maria20, Instigation and Entrapment has been defined as:
Instigation is the means by which the accused is lured into
the commission of the offense charged in order to prosecute
him. On the other hand, entrapment is the employment of
such ways and means for the purpose of trapping or
capturing a lawbreaker. Thus, in instigation, Officers of the
law or their agents incite, induce, instigate or lure an
accused into committing an offense which he or she would
otherwise not commit and has no intention of committing.
But in entrapment, the criminal intent or design to commit
the offense charged originates in the mind of the accused,
and law enforcement officials merely facilitate the
apprehension of the criminal by employing ruses and
schemes; thus, the accused cannot justify his or her
conduct. In instigation, where law enforcers act as coprincipals, the accused will have to be acquitted. But
entrapment cannot bar prosecution and conviction. As has
been said, instigation is a trap for the unwary innocent,
while entrapment is a trap for the unwary criminal.
In entrapment, the entrapper resorts to ways and
means to trap and capture a lawbreaker while executing his
criminal plan. In instigation, the instigator practically induces
the would-be defendant into committing the offense, and
himself becomes a co-principal. In entrapment, the means
originates from the mind of the criminal. The idea and the
resolve to commit the crime come from him. In instigation,
the law enforcer conceives the commission of the crime and
suggests to the accused that adopts the idea and carries it
19 People vs. Delia Bayani GR. No. 179150 June 17, 2008.
20 People vs. Rafael Sta Maria, GR No. 171019 Feb 23, 2007.
7

into execution. The legal effects of entrapment do not

exempt the criminal from liability. Instigation does.