The case involved a buy-bust operation where an NBI agent received information that Roberto Pacis was offering to sell shabu. The NBI approved the operation and assigned agents to handle the case, which resulted in Pacis's arrest. The court ruled it was a case of entrapment, not instigation. The trial court is given deference in credibility determinations of witnesses. Courts also generally presume law enforcement officers have performed their duties regularly without evidence to the contrary, so their narration of events is given credence in entrapment cases.
The case involved a buy-bust operation where an NBI agent received information that Roberto Pacis was offering to sell shabu. The NBI approved the operation and assigned agents to handle the case, which resulted in Pacis's arrest. The court ruled it was a case of entrapment, not instigation. The trial court is given deference in credibility determinations of witnesses. Courts also generally presume law enforcement officers have performed their duties regularly without evidence to the contrary, so their narration of events is given credence in entrapment cases.
The case involved a buy-bust operation where an NBI agent received information that Roberto Pacis was offering to sell shabu. The NBI approved the operation and assigned agents to handle the case, which resulted in Pacis's arrest. The court ruled it was a case of entrapment, not instigation. The trial court is given deference in credibility determinations of witnesses. Courts also generally presume law enforcement officers have performed their duties regularly without evidence to the contrary, so their narration of events is given credence in entrapment cases.
The case involved a buy-bust operation where an NBI agent received information that Roberto Pacis was offering to sell shabu. The NBI approved the operation and assigned agents to handle the case, which resulted in Pacis's arrest. The court ruled it was a case of entrapment, not instigation. The trial court is given deference in credibility determinations of witnesses. Courts also generally presume law enforcement officers have performed their duties regularly without evidence to the contrary, so their narration of events is given credence in entrapment cases.
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
Download as docx, pdf, or txt
You are on page 1/ 1
Absolutory Causes and Other Special Situations Case No.
129
Instigation and Entrapment
People v. Pacis
384 SCRA 684 (2002)
FACTS: Atty. Jose Justo S. Yap, supervising agent of the Dangerous Drugs Division-National Bureau of Investigation, received information that a certain Roberto Mendoza Pacis was offering to sell “shabu” for the amount of (P475,000.00). The NBI Chief of the Dangerous Drugs Division approved the buy-bust operation. Atty. Yap and Senior Agent Midgonio S. Congzon, Jr. were assigned to handle the case. Accused was eventually apprehended.
Issue: Whether or not there was an entrapment case
RULING: YES
Ratio Decidenti:
A careful examination of the records shows that the operation that led to the arrest of appellant was indeed an entrapment, not an instigation. The trial court’s assessment of the credibility of witnesses must be accorded the highest respect, because it had the advantage of observing their demeanor and was thus in a better position to discern if they were telling the truth or not. Furthermore, courts generally give full faith and credit to officers of the law, for they are presumed to have performed their duties in a regular manner. Accordingly, in entrapment cases, credence is given to the narration of an incident by prosecution witnesses who are officers of the law and presumed to have performed their duties in a regular manner in the absence of evidence to the contrary.
