In People v. Arsenio Cortez, the Supreme Court affirmed the conviction of the accused for the illegal sale of dangerous drugs, specifically shabu, under Section 5, Article II of Republic Act No. 9165. The Court clarified the distinction between entrapment and instigation in buy-bust operations, emphasizing that entrapment is a valid law enforcement technique while instigation is not. This decision underscores the importance of proving that the intent to commit the crime originated from the accused, not from the police officers, to ensure the legality of drug-related arrests.

Drug Bust or Frame-Up? Examining Entrapment in Illegal Drug Sales

The case began with an informant’s tip that Arsenio Cortez, also known as “Archie,” was selling shabu in Pasig City. Based on this information, the police organized a buy-bust operation. SPO2 Dante Zipagan acted as the poseur-buyer, and he was given marked money to purchase the drugs. The informant introduced SPO2 Zipagan to “Archie,” who then sold him a sachet of shabu in exchange for PhP 200. Immediately after the transaction, SPO2 Zipagan signaled his fellow officers, who then arrested Cortez. The seized substance was later confirmed to be methamphetamine hydrochloride, commonly known as shabu. Cortez, however, claimed he was framed, asserting that the police instigated the crime. This defense hinged on whether the police merely entrapped him or actively instigated the sale of drugs.

The Supreme Court tackled the critical distinction between entrapment and instigation. Entrapment, a legal and accepted practice, involves law enforcement officers creating an opportunity for a person already predisposed to commit a crime to carry out their intentions. The key is that the intent to commit the crime must originate with the accused. In contrast, instigation occurs when law enforcement officers induce or coerce a person into committing a crime they would not otherwise have committed. Instigation is considered an absolutory cause, meaning that if proven, it can absolve the accused of criminal liability.

The Court referred to People v. Bongalon, elucidating that buy-bust operations are a form of entrapment, used to capture individuals already inclined to commit crimes. It is considered legal and effective if conducted within constitutional and legal boundaries. The American concept of entrapment, as seen in Sorrells v. United States, is similar to instigation, where the criminal act originates from the police, with the accused having no prior intent. This distinction is crucial because, in the Philippines, while entrapment is permissible, instigation serves as a valid defense.

In People v. Lua Chu and Uy Se Tieng, the difference between entrapment and instigation was clearly defined. The court stated:

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.

To ascertain whether entrapment occurred, courts use two tests: the subjective test and the objective test. The subjective test focuses on the accused’s intent or predisposition to commit the crime, while the objective test examines the conduct of the law enforcement officials. Philippine courts have adopted the objective test, which was emphasized in People v. Doria. This test requires a thorough examination of the details of the buy-bust operation. This includes the initial contact, the offer to purchase, the payment, and the delivery of the drugs. This approach ensures that law-abiding citizens are not unlawfully induced to commit an offense.

Applying these principles to Cortez’s case, the Court found that the police officers had indeed used entrapment. The informant made the initial contact, introducing SPO2 Zipagan as a buyer. SPO2 Zipagan then offered to buy shabu, paying with marked money, and Cortez delivered the drugs. This sequence of events aligns with a typical buy-bust operation and demonstrates that the police conduct was within acceptable standards. Therefore, the Court upheld the validity of the buy-bust operation.

The Court also addressed Cortez’s concerns regarding the chain of custody of the seized drugs. Establishing the chain of custody is vital in drug cases, as it ensures the integrity and identity of the seized drug, forming an integral part of the corpus delicti. The goal is to prove with moral certainty that the substance seized during the buy-bust operation is the same one presented in court as evidence.

The Implementing Rules and Regulations (IRR) of RA 9165 outline the procedures for handling seized drugs. Section 21 of the IRR states:

SECTION 21. Custody and Disposition of Confiscated, Seized and/or Surrendered Dangerous Drugs, Plant Sources of Dangerous Drugs, Controlled Precursors and Essential Chemicals, Instruments/Paraphernalia and/or Laboratory Equipment. – The PDEA shall take charge and have custody of all dangerous drugs, plant sources of dangerous drugs, controlled precursors and essential chemicals, as well as instruments/paraphernalia and/or laboratory equipment so confiscated, seized and/or surrendered, for proper disposition in the following manner:

(a) The apprehending officer/team having initial custody and control of the drugs shall, immediately after seizure and confiscation, physically inventory and photograph the same in the presence of the accused or the person/s from whom such items were confiscated and/or seized, or his/her representative or counsel, a representative from the media and the Department of Justice (DOJ), and any elected public official who shall be required to sign the copies of the inventory and be given a copy thereof.

The rules require immediate inventory and photographing of the seized items in the presence of the accused and representatives from the media and the Department of Justice. However, the IRR also provides for exceptions, stating that non-compliance with these requirements does not necessarily invalidate the seizure, provided the integrity and evidentiary value of the seized items are preserved. This flexibility acknowledges the practical challenges law enforcement officers often face.

In this case, the Court found that there was substantial compliance with the legal requirements. After the seizure, the sachet of shabu was promptly brought to the police station, marked as AMC 10-26-03, and then sent to the PNP Crime Laboratory. The specimen tested positive for methamphetamine hydrochloride, and the examining officer, P/Insp. Perdido, marked the sachet with his initials, JMP. The Court concluded that the chain of custody was sufficiently established, and the integrity of the evidence was maintained. In line with Malillin v. People, the prosecution presented SPO2 Zipagan’s testimony, who first had custody of the seized shabu. The defense and prosecution also stipulated that Exhibit “E-1” is the same specimen as Exhibits “B-1” and “C-1”, affirming the specimen was examined regularly.

Lastly, the Court dismissed Cortez’s defense of denial. The Court stated that denial is inherently weak, especially when contrasted with the positive and credible testimony of SP02 Zipagan, who identified Cortez as the seller. The court noted that the police officers had no motive to falsely accuse Cortez. The Court emphasized that the presumption of regularity in the performance of official duties applies when there is no evidence of ill motive or irregularities. Cortez admitted he did not know any of the arresting officers, further undermining his claim of a frame-up. All told, the Supreme Court found no reason to overturn the lower courts’ decisions, ultimately affirming Cortez’s conviction.

FAQs

What was the key issue in this case?	The central issue was whether Arsenio Cortez was illegally selling dangerous drugs, and whether the buy-bust operation conducted by the police was a valid form of entrapment or an illegal act of instigation. The Court needed to determine if the police merely provided an opportunity for Cortez to commit a crime he was already predisposed to, or if they induced him to commit a crime he would not have otherwise committed.
What is the difference between entrapment and instigation?	Entrapment is a legal law enforcement tactic where police provide an opportunity for someone already predisposed to commit a crime. Instigation, on the other hand, is when police induce someone to commit a crime they wouldn’t normally commit, which is illegal and can be a valid defense.
What is a buy-bust operation?	A buy-bust operation is a common technique used by law enforcement to catch individuals selling illegal drugs. It involves an undercover officer posing as a buyer to purchase drugs from a suspect, leading to their arrest.
What is the “chain of custody” in drug cases?	The “chain of custody” refers to the documented sequence of who handled the evidence, from the moment of seizure to its presentation in court. It ensures the integrity and identity of the drug evidence, proving it’s the same substance seized from the accused.
What did the police do after seizing the drugs in this case?	After seizing the drugs, the police marked the sachet, brought it to the police station, and sent it to the PNP Crime Laboratory for examination. The lab confirmed the substance was methamphetamine hydrochloride (shabu).
What is the significance of Section 21 of the IRR of RA 9165?	Section 21 of the IRR of RA 9165 outlines the procedures for handling seized drugs, including inventory and photographing. Non-compliance with these procedures does not automatically invalidate the seizure, provided the integrity and evidentiary value of the drugs are maintained.
Why was Cortez’s defense of denial not accepted by the Court?	The Court found Cortez’s denial weak compared to the credible testimony of the poseur-buyer, SPO2 Zipagan, who positively identified Cortez as the seller. Additionally, the police officers had no prior motive to falsely accuse Cortez.
What was the final ruling of the Supreme Court?	The Supreme Court affirmed the lower court’s decision, finding Arsenio Cortez guilty of selling illegal drugs in violation of R.A. 9165. The Court upheld the legality of the buy-bust operation and found that the prosecution had proven Cortez’s guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.

This case provides critical insights into the legal boundaries of law enforcement operations in drug-related offenses. The distinction between entrapment and instigation is paramount in ensuring that individuals are not unjustly prosecuted for crimes they were induced to commit. The ruling underscores the importance of maintaining a clear chain of custody for seized evidence to preserve its integrity and admissibility in court.

For inquiries regarding the application of this ruling to specific circumstances, please contact ASG Law through contact or via email at frontdesk@asglawpartners.com.

Disclaimer: This analysis is provided for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. For specific legal guidance tailored to your situation, please consult with a qualified attorney.
Source: People v. Arsenio Cortez, G.R. No. 183819, July 23, 2009