CASE TITLE: PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, petitioner, vs. EDWARD R.

FELICIANO,
ANITA G. LAURORA, EDITHA C. MAGLALANG, MAY G. ESTRELLA, and ROMELITO G.
RUELO, accused-appellants,
CASE No.: G.R. No. 190179. October 20, 2010.
TOPIC: ENTRAPMENT v. INSTIGATION
PONENTE: JUSTICE VELASCO, JR.

FACTS: The Prosecution’s Version of Facts. On February 22, 2006, at around 10pm, PO2
Monte received a telephone call from a concerned citizen. The caller reported that an illegal
drug trade was being operated by a certain Janggo at the Rodriguez Compound, Barangay
Rosario, Pasig City. Such information validated the letter-complaint the police had earlier
received from the Barangay Captain of Barangay Rosario, implicating a similar person called
Janggo in drug-related activities. Thereafter, PO2 Monte informed his team leader, Police
Inspector Pamor, about the alleged drug trade. Pamor then instructed PO2 Monte to get the
assistance of the concerned citizen for the immediate apprehension of Janggo. After learning
about this, the concerned citizen sent a person by the name of Buboy to the police headquarters
to help. Pamor talked with Buboy, after which he organized a buy-bust operation against
Janggo.

PO2 Monte was designated as poseur-buyer and, for that purpose, he was given two PhP 100
bills where he put his initials BVM. Meanwhile, several other policemen were designated as
immediate back-ups of PO2 Monte. A pre-operation report was prepared and sent to the
Philippine Drug Enforcement Agency (PDEA). After coordinating with the PDEA, the buy-bust
team and the confidential informant went to the target area on board a passenger-type jeepney.

After parking their vehicle about 50 meters away from the house of Janggo, PO2 Monte and the
informant proceeded towards it, followed by other members of the team. Upon reaching the
house, PO2 Monte saw a man standing in front of it whom the informant identified as Janggo.
They approached Janggo and then saw a woman standing on the doorway. The informant
introduced PO2 Monte to Janggo as a regular buyer of shabu. The latter then asked PO2 Monte
how much he intended to buy, to which he answered, P200.00. While PO2 Monte was talking to
Janggo, he noticed two women and a man seated inside the house. Janggo then asked the
woman standing near the doorway if she had any shabu. The woman then pulled a plastic
sachet from her right pocket which she handed to Janggo, who, in turn, handed it to PO2 Monte.

Upon receiving and examining the plastic sachet, PO2 Monte took off his baseball cap, the pre-
arranged signal to signify the consummation of the sale. The back-up operatives then rushed to
assist PO2 Monte. At this point, PO2 Monte identified himself as a police officer and grabbed
the left arm of Janggo. When PO2 Caparas arrived at the scene, PO2 Monte shouted that there
were more persons inside the house. PO2 Caparas then apprehended the woman standing
near the doorway, while PO1 Vega and PO1 Mapula cornered the three other persons inside
the house.

Subsequently, in open court, Janggo was identified as accused-appellant Feliciano, while the
woman standing near the doorway as accused-appellant Laurora. The other persons
apprehended inside the house were likewise identified as the other accused Ruelo, Maglalang,
and the now deceased May Estrella. All of them were brought to the police station for further
investigation, after which they were brought to the Philippine National Police (PNP) Crime
Laboratory at Camp Crame for the mandatory drug examination.
Version of the Defense. In contrast, accused-appellants interposed the defense of denial. Live-
in partners Feliciano and Laurora claimed that, at the fateful night of their arrest, they were
preparing dinner when certain police officers just barged inside their house. The police officers
then put them under arrest without any reason or explanation and despite their protests.
Accused-appellants further claimed that the police officers asked them to produce PhP 10,000
in exchange for their release. Failing to produce the amount, charges were then filed against
them. The testimony of Ruelo is corroborative of the story of accused-appellants. He said that
he was staying at the house and that he is the brother of Laurora. He confirmed the statement
of his co-accused that the police just barged inside the house and, without any reason, put all of
them under arrest after searching it.

In view of the foregoing, two informations were filed against all the accused – selling and using
of illegal drugs in violation of Sections 5 and 15 of the Dangerous Drugs Act.

After trial, the RTC found all the accused guilty of the crime. Feliciano and Laurora (life
imprisonment and P1M fine for violating Section 5) and ALL the accused (rehab for 1 year).

On appeal, the CA affirmed the judgment of the lower court. Hence, the petition.

ISSUE/s: Whether the buy-bust operation was legitimate and valid.

RULING: YES. Accused-appellants contend that the police officers who conducted the buy-bust
operation had sufficient time to obtain a warrant of arrest considering that they were already in
possession of pertinent information, i.e., the letter-complaint from the Barangay Captain. Thus,
they argue that the police officers had no basis to show any urgency upon which to justify a
warrantless arrest.

The SC disagrees. It is settled that a buy-bust operation is a form of entrapment that is resorted
to for trapping and capturing criminals. It is legal and has been proved to be an effective method
of apprehending drug peddlers, provided due regard to constitutional and legal safeguards is
undertaken.

Accused-appellants want to convince the Court that their arrest was illegal. As aptly held by the
CA, [a]ppellants’ argument that the police officers should have instead secured an arrest
warrant is misplaced and untenable considering the nature of the offense involved, the obscurity
of the transgressors thereof, and the unpredictability of the transaction subject of the offense.
Moreover, this Court has ruled time and again that a buy-bust operation is employed to trap and
catch a malefactor in flagrante delicto. In fact, there is a fine distinction between entrapping a
criminal versus instigating him to commit the crime, to wit:

“ENTRAPMENT AND INSTIGATION. While it has been said that the practice of entrapping
persons into crime for the purpose of instituting criminal prosecutions is to be deplored, and
while instigation, as distinguished from mere entrapment, has often been condemned and has
sometimes been held to prevent the act from being criminal or punishable, the general rule is
that it is no defense to the perpetrator of a crime that facilities for its commission were purposely
placed in his way, or that the criminal act was done at the decoy solicitation of persons seeking
to expose the criminal, or that detectives feigning complicity in the act were present and
apparently assisting in its commission. Especially is this true in that class of cases where the
offense is one of a kind habitually committed, and the solicitation merely furnishes evidence of a
course of conduct. Mere deception by the detective will not shield defendant, if the offense was
committed by him, free from the influence or instigation of the detective. The fact that an agent
of an owner acts as a supposed confederate of a thief is no defense to the latter in a
prosecution for larceny, provided the original design was formed independently of such agent;
and where a person approached by the thief as his confederate notifies the owner or the public
authorities, and, being authorised by them to do so, assists the thief in carrying out the plan, the
larceny is nevertheless committed. It is generally held that it is no defense to a prosecution for
an illegal sale of liquor that the purchase was made by a spotter, detective, or hired informer;
but there are cases holding the contrary.”

Clearly, in this case, the buy-bust operation was proper. All the essential elements of the crime
of illegal sale of drugs have been established, i.e., (1) the identity of the buyer and the seller, the
object of the sale, and the consideration; and (2) the delivery of the thing sold and the payment
for it. What is material is the proof that the transaction or sale actually took place. The delivery
of the illicit drug to the poseur-buyer and the receipt by the seller of the marked money
successfully consummate the buy-bust transaction.

In the instant case, the prosecution was able to establish these elements beyond moral
certainty. Accused-appellants sold the shabu for PhP 200 to PO2 Monte posing as buyer; the
said drug was seized and identified as a prohibited drug and subsequently presented in
evidence; there was actual exchange of the marked money and contraband; and finally,
accused-appellant Feliciano was fully aware that he was selling and delivering a prohibited
drug.

DISPOSITIVE PORTION: WHEREFORE, the appeal is DENIED. The CA Decision in CA-G.R.