The Supreme Court affirmed the conviction of Armando Mendoza for the illegal sale of marijuana, confirming the validity of buy-bust operations as a form of entrapment, not instigation, when law enforcement agencies have prior knowledge of the accused’s illegal activities. This ruling clarifies the distinction between entrapment (a legal method of catching a criminal) and instigation (illegally inducing someone to commit a crime they wouldn’t otherwise commit), ensuring that law enforcement can effectively combat drug sales without overstepping legal boundaries. The decision emphasizes that when police act on prior information and merely facilitate a pre-existing criminal intent, the operation is lawful, and the evidence obtained is admissible in court, thereby upholding convictions in such cases.

From Sari-Sari Store to Supreme Court: Was ‘Jojo’ a Seller or a Setup?

The case of People v. Armando Mendoza revolves around the legality of a buy-bust operation and whether it constituted entrapment or unlawful instigation. Armando Mendoza, known as “Jojo,” was convicted of selling marijuana in violation of Section 5, Article II of Republic Act No. 9165, also known as the Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002. The Court of Appeals (CA) affirmed the conviction, leading Mendoza to appeal, arguing that the prosecution failed to prove the corpus delicti beyond a reasonable doubt and that the elements for the prosecution of illegal drug sales were not established.

The prosecution’s evidence showed that on April 18, 2006, a confidential informant (CI) reported to the Provincial Anti-Illegal Drugs Special Operation Task Group (PAIDSOTG) that Mendoza was selling illegal drugs in Carigara, Leyte. Consequently, the PAIDSOTG coordinated with the local police and the Philippine Drugs Enforcement Agency (PDEA) to conduct a buy-bust operation. During the operation on April 20, 2006, PO2 Elvin Ricote, acting as the poseur-buyer, purchased four teabags of marijuana from Mendoza for P200.00. Mendoza was subsequently arrested, and the seized items were submitted to the PNP Crime Laboratory, which confirmed the substance as marijuana.

Mendoza, however, denied the charges, claiming that he was repairing a pedicab when police officers apprehended him and planted the evidence. He argued that the operation was not a legitimate entrapment but an instigation, as the CI allegedly introduced PO2 Ricote to him and instructed him to sell the marijuana. The Supreme Court, however, found Mendoza’s arguments unpersuasive.

The Court addressed the critical distinction between entrapment and instigation. Entrapment occurs when law enforcement employs means to trap a lawbreaker, while instigation involves luring someone into committing a crime they had no prior intention to commit. As the Supreme Court explained in People v. Dansico:

xxx. Instigation means luring the accused into a crime that he, otherwise, had no intention to commit, in order to prosecute him. On the other hand, entrapment is the employment of ways and means in order to trap or capture a lawbreaker. Instigation presupposes that the criminal intent to commit an offense originated from the inducer and not the accused who had no intention to commit the crime and would not have committed it were it not for the initiatives by the inducer. In entrapment, the criminal intent or design to commit the offense charged originates in the mind of the accused; the law enforcement officials merely facilitate the apprehension of the criminal by employing ruses and schemes. In instigation, the law enforcers act as active co-principals. Instigation leads to the acquittal of the accused, while entrapment does not bar prosecution and conviction.

The court further cited People v. Doria, emphasizing the need to examine both the conduct of the apprehending officers and the predisposition of the accused to commit the crime. In Mendoza’s case, the Supreme Court found that there was a prior surveillance confirming Mendoza’s involvement in selling illegal drugs. Thus, the buy-bust operation was a legitimate form of entrapment, where the police officers merely facilitated the apprehension of a person already engaged in criminal activity. The act of soliciting drugs from the accused, known as a “decoy solicitation,” is not prohibited and does not invalidate the operation.

Mendoza also argued that the identity of the marked money was not adequately established, as it was not pre-recorded in the police blotter. The Court dismissed this argument, clarifying that neither law nor jurisprudence requires buy-bust money to be entered in the police blotter. The non-recording of the buy-bust money is not essential, as it is not an element in the illegal sale of dangerous drugs. What matters is that the money was presented and identified in court, which PO2 Ricote did.

Another critical aspect of the case was the chain of custody of the seized items. Mendoza argued that there was a gap in the chain of custody, violating Section 1(b) of Dangerous Drugs Board Resolution No. 1, Series of 2002, which implements RA No. 9165.

b. “Chain of Custody” means the duly recorded authorized movements and custody of seized drugs or controlled chemicals or plant sources of dangerous drugs or laboratory equipment of each stage, from the time of seizure/confiscation to receipt in the forensic laboratory to safekeeping to presentation in court for destruction. Such record of movements and custody of seized item shall include the identity and signature of the person who held temporary custody of the seized item, the date and time when such transfer of custody were made in the course of safekeeping and use in court as evidence, and the final disposition;

The Supreme Court, however, found that the prosecution had sufficiently established an unbroken chain of custody. PO2 Ricote testified that after Mendoza’s arrest, the seized items were brought to the barangay hall for inventory, where a receipt of property seized was executed, and the items were marked. P/Insp. Son also prepared a certificate of inventory. SPO1 Cesar Cruda of the PDEA acknowledged receiving the items from PO2 Ricote and submitted them to the PNP Crime Laboratory. Forensic Chemist P/C Insp. Edwin Zata confirmed that the specimens tested positive for marijuana and resealed them before turning them over to the evidence custodian. The marked teabags of marijuana were later presented in court and identified by PO2 Ricote.

Some inconsistencies were raised regarding who marked the seized items and the exact number of teabags involved. However, the Court emphasized that these discrepancies did not necessarily invalidate the witnesses’ credibility, especially since PO2 Ricote’s testimony was consistent with the documentary evidence. The positive testimonies of the prosecution witnesses outweighed Mendoza’s defense of denial.

Ultimately, the Supreme Court upheld Mendoza’s conviction, emphasizing the importance of buy-bust operations in combating illegal drug sales. The Court found no evidence that the police officers were motivated by any improper motive to falsely accuse Mendoza, reinforcing the presumption that they performed their duties regularly. The penalty for the sale of dangerous drugs under Section 5, Article II of RA No. 9165, is life imprisonment to death and a fine ranging from P500,000.00 to P10,000,000.00. Given the prohibition of the death penalty under RA No. 9346, the Court sustained the CA’s imposition of life imprisonment and a fine of P1,000,000.00.

FAQs

What was the key issue in this case?	The central issue was whether the buy-bust operation conducted by the police constituted entrapment (legal) or unlawful instigation, and whether the chain of custody of the seized drugs was properly maintained. The Court clarified the difference between entrapment and instigation, finding that the police acted on prior information and merely facilitated the apprehension.
What is the difference between entrapment and instigation?	Entrapment is the legal employment of ways and means to trap a lawbreaker, while instigation involves luring someone into committing a crime they had no prior intention to commit. In entrapment, the criminal intent originates in the mind of the accused; in instigation, it originates from the inducer.
Was the buy-bust operation in this case considered entrapment or instigation?	The Supreme Court ruled that the buy-bust operation was a legitimate form of entrapment because the police had prior information about Mendoza’s drug-selling activities. The police merely facilitated the apprehension of someone already engaged in criminal behavior.
Is it necessary to record the buy-bust money in the police blotter?	No, neither law nor jurisprudence requires the buy-bust money to be entered in the police blotter. The important factor is that the money is presented and identified in court as the money used in the illegal transaction.
What is the chain of custody, and why is it important?	The chain of custody refers to the documented and authorized movements of seized drugs, from the time of seizure to presentation in court. It is essential to ensure the integrity and evidentiary value of the seized items by dispelling doubts about their identity and condition.
Did the Court find any gaps in the chain of custody in this case?	No, the Supreme Court determined that the prosecution had sufficiently established an unbroken chain of custody. The Court traced the handling of the evidence from seizure to laboratory testing to presentation in court.
What was the penalty imposed on Armando Mendoza?	Mendoza was sentenced to life imprisonment and ordered to pay a fine of P1,000,000.00 for the illegal sale of marijuana, in accordance with Section 5, Article II of RA No. 9165, as modified by RA No. 9346 (prohibiting the imposition of the death penalty).
What happens if there are minor inconsistencies in the testimonies of the police officers?	Minor inconsistencies do not automatically invalidate the credibility of the witnesses, especially when the poseur-buyer’s testimony is consistent with the documentary evidence. The Court evaluates the testimonies as a whole, giving weight to the consistent and credible aspects.

This case underscores the importance of understanding the legal distinctions between entrapment and instigation in drug-related offenses. It also highlights the necessity of maintaining a clear and unbroken chain of custody for seized evidence. The Supreme Court’s decision in People v. Mendoza serves as a crucial reference for law enforcement agencies, legal practitioners, and anyone seeking to understand the nuances of drug enforcement operations in the Philippines.

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. Mendoza, G.R. No. 220759, July 24, 2017