When Law Enforcement Crosses the Line: Understanding Entrapment and Instigation

A.M. No. MTJ-93-783, July 29, 1996

Imagine being approached by law enforcement, not because you initiated a crime, but because they coaxed you into committing one. This raises a critical question: where is the line between legitimate police work and illegal instigation? This case, Office of the Court Administrator vs. Judge Filomeno Pascual, delves into the complex distinction between entrapment and instigation, protecting individuals from potential abuses of power.

The Crucial Difference: Entrapment vs. Instigation

The line between legitimate law enforcement and overreach lies in understanding the difference between entrapment and instigation. These concepts are critical in determining whether an accused individual was predisposed to commit a crime or whether they were induced by law enforcement to commit an act they otherwise wouldn’t have.

Entrapment occurs when law enforcement induces a person to commit a crime that they had no intention of committing. The key element is the lack of pre-existing criminal intent. The accused is essentially lured into committing the offense.

Instigation, on the other hand, takes place when law enforcement actively implants the idea of committing a crime in someone’s mind and induces them to carry it out. In instigation, the intent to commit the crime originates with the authorities, not the individual.

The Supreme Court has consistently held that entrapment can be a valid defense, while instigation negates the very basis of criminal liability. To better illustrate, consider the following example:

Hypothetical Example:

A person who has never considered selling drugs is approached by an undercover officer who persistently pressures them to obtain and sell illegal substances. If the person eventually succumbs to the pressure and sells the drugs, this could be considered instigation. However, if a person is already known to be involved in drug sales, and an officer provides an opportunity for them to make a sale, that would likely be considered legitimate entrapment.

The Legal Framework: Laws and Precedents

The Revised Penal Code penalizes bribery and extortion, but it does not explicitly define entrapment or instigation. These concepts have been developed through jurisprudence, based on principles of due process and fairness.

The case of People v. Lua Chu (1956) is a landmark decision that distinguishes between entrapment and instigation, emphasizing that law enforcement should not induce a person to violate the law. The court stated that “to determine whether there was entrapment, the inquiry should be directed at the intention and conduct of the peace officers more than to that of the accused.”

Relevant provisions include:

• Article 210 of the Revised Penal Code: Defines and penalizes direct bribery, which involves a public officer agreeing to perform an act constituting a crime in connection with the performance of his official duties, in consideration of any offer, promise, gift or present received by such officer, personally or through the mediation of another.
• Section 3, Rule 115 of the Rules of Court: Guarantees the right of the accused to confront and cross-examine witnesses against them, which is crucial in cases involving allegations of entrapment or instigation.

Case Facts: Allegations of Bribery Against Judge Pascual

In this case, Judge Filomeno Pascual was accused of bribery based on a letter alleging irregularities. The National Bureau of Investigation (NBI) launched an investigation, but the initial informant was found to be fictitious. The NBI then focused on Candido Cruz, an accused in a case before Judge Pascual.

• Cruz claimed Judge Pascual impliedly asked for P2,000 in exchange for a favorable ruling in his case.
• The NBI conducted a sting operation where Cruz allegedly handed marked money to Judge Pascual.
• The money was later found in Judge Pascual’s office.
• Judge Pascual denied accepting the money, claiming it was planted by the NBI.

The Supreme Court, however, found significant inconsistencies in the evidence. The Court noted that the NBI’s actions appeared to be more of an instigation than a legitimate entrapment operation.

The Court emphasized the importance of due process and the need for competent evidence, especially in cases involving serious allegations against members of the judiciary. As the Court stated, “Before any of its members could be faulted, it should be only after due investigation and after presentation of competent evidence, especially since the charge is penal in character.”

The Supreme Court’s Decision: Reasonable Doubt and Exoneration

The Supreme Court ultimately exonerated Judge Pascual, citing reasonable doubt. The Court highlighted several key factors:

• The inconsistencies in the testimonies of Cruz and the NBI agents.
• The NBI’s failure to find the money during their initial search, suggesting it was planted.
• The fact that the alleged bribery occurred after Judge Pascual had already ruled favorably for Cruz.

The Court concluded that the NBI’s actions constituted instigation, as they induced Cruz to offer the money to Judge Pascual, rather than simply providing an opportunity for a pre-existing criminal intent to manifest.

The Supreme Court reiterated, in the case of Raquiza v. Castaneda, Jr., that “The ground for the removal of a judicial officer should be established beyond reasonable doubt… The general rules in regard to admissibility of evidence in criminal trials apply.”

Practical Implications: Protecting Yourself from Illegal Entrapment

This case underscores the importance of understanding your rights when dealing with law enforcement. If you believe you have been a victim of illegal entrapment or instigation, it is crucial to seek legal counsel immediately.

Key Lessons:

• Know Your Rights: Understand your right to remain silent and to have an attorney present during questioning.
• Document Everything: Keep detailed records of all interactions with law enforcement, including dates, times, locations, and the names of the officers involved.
• Seek Legal Counsel: If you believe you have been entrapped or instigated, consult with a qualified attorney who can assess your case and advise you on the best course of action.

Frequently Asked Questions

Q: What is the main difference between entrapment and instigation?

A: Entrapment involves law enforcement providing an opportunity for someone with pre-existing criminal intent to commit a crime. Instigation involves law enforcement inducing someone to commit a crime they had no intention of committing.

Q: Can I use entrapment as a defense in court?

A: Yes, entrapment can be a valid defense if you can prove that you were induced by law enforcement to commit a crime you would not have otherwise committed.

Q: What should I do if I think I am being entrapped by the police?

A: Remain silent, do not consent to any searches, and contact a lawyer immediately.

Q: How does the court determine if entrapment or instigation occurred?

A: The court will examine the actions of law enforcement and the defendant’s prior conduct to determine whether the defendant had a pre-existing intent to commit the crime or whether the intent originated with the authorities.

Q: What kind of evidence is needed to prove entrapment?

A: Evidence may include recordings of conversations with law enforcement, witness testimony, and any documentation that shows you were pressured or induced to commit the crime.

Q: Does entrapment apply to all crimes?

A: Yes, the defense of entrapment can potentially apply to any crime, but it is most commonly raised in cases involving drug offenses, bribery, and solicitation.

Q: What is the role of due process in cases involving entrapment?

A: Due process requires that law enforcement act fairly and not abuse their power. Entrapment can be a violation of due process if it involves coercion, harassment, or other unfair tactics.

ASG Law specializes in criminal defense and protecting your rights against police misconduct. Contact us or email hello@asglawpartners.com to schedule a consultation.