The Supreme Court has affirmed the conviction of Eric Rosauro y Bongcawil for the illegal sale of shabu, emphasizing the distinction between entrapment and instigation in buy-bust operations. The Court clarified that when law enforcement merely provides the opportunity for an individual predisposed to commit a crime, it constitutes valid entrapment. This ruling reinforces the state’s ability to conduct legitimate operations against drug offenders while protecting individuals from being unlawfully induced into criminal activity.

Between Opportunity and Inducement: The Fine Line in Drug Enforcement

The case of People of the Philippines vs. Eric Rosauro y Bongcawil revolves around the legality of a buy-bust operation conducted by the Provincial Anti-Illegal Drugs Special Operation Task Unit (PAID-SOTU) in Misamis Oriental. Accused-appellant Rosauro was apprehended for selling shabu to a confidential agent, leading to charges under Section 5, Article II of Republic Act No. 9165, the Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002. The defense argued that Rosauro was a victim of instigation, claiming he was induced by the police asset to commit the crime, while the prosecution maintained that the operation was a legitimate act of entrapment. This distinction forms the crux of the legal battle, raising critical questions about the boundaries of law enforcement conduct in drug-related cases.

The central issue before the Supreme Court was whether the actions of the PAID-SOTU constituted entrapment or instigation. Entrapment, a legally permissible tactic, occurs when law enforcement officers merely provide the opportunity for an individual already predisposed to commit a crime to carry out their intentions. Instigation, on the other hand, involves inducing an innocent person to commit a crime they would not otherwise commit. The Court had to determine whether Rosauro was predisposed to sell drugs, or if he was coerced into doing so by the confidential agent.

The Court elucidated the difference between entrapment and instigation, citing People v. Bartolome:

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 its commission. Especially is this true in that class of cases where the office is one habitually committed, and the solicitation merely furnishes evidence of a course of conduct.

In essence, the Court affirmed that providing an opportunity to commit a crime, where the intent to commit the crime already exists, does not negate culpability. The prosecution presented evidence showing that Rosauro had previously been reported for selling drugs, which led to the initial test-buy operation. This prior involvement suggested a predisposition to engage in drug-related activities, undermining the claim of instigation.

Accused-appellant argued that the confidential informant had approached him multiple times, urging him to procure the drugs, and that the informant provided the money for the transaction. However, the Court found this insufficient to establish instigation. The crucial factor was whether the idea to commit the crime originated from Rosauro himself, or solely from the informant. Since there was evidence of prior drug-related activities, the Court concluded that the informant merely facilitated Rosauro’s existing criminal intent.

Another significant aspect of the case involved the presentation of the confidential informant as a witness. The defense argued that the prosecution’s failure to present the informant weakened their case. However, the Court has consistently held that the presentation of an informant is not indispensable, particularly when the buy-bust operation is adequately witnessed by law enforcement officers. The testimonies of SPO4 Lorenzo Larot and PO3 Juancho Dizon, who directly observed the transaction, were deemed sufficient to establish the facts of the case.

Moreover, the Court addressed the argument that the prosecution failed to properly establish the chain of custody of the seized drugs. Section 21 of R.A. No. 9165 outlines the procedures for handling seized drugs to ensure their integrity and prevent tampering. While strict compliance with these procedures is ideal, the Court acknowledged that minor deviations do not automatically invalidate the seizure, especially when the integrity and evidentiary value of the drugs are preserved.

The Court highlighted the importance of preserving the corpus delicti, which in drug cases is the seized drug itself. The prosecution must establish with moral certainty that the substance bought or seized during the buy-bust operation is the same item presented in court as evidence. In this case, the Court was convinced that the chain of custody was adequately established. SPO4 Larot testified that he immediately marked the sachet after the sale, prepared the necessary documentation, and personally submitted the evidence to the PNP Crime Laboratory. The forensic analysis confirmed that the substance was indeed methamphetamine hydrochloride (shabu).

The court referenced People v. Torres in underscoring the importance of evidence of the seized drug as the corpus delicti:

SEC. 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:

(1) The apprehending 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.

Ultimately, the Supreme Court affirmed the conviction, finding that the prosecution had successfully established all the elements of illegal sale of dangerous drugs beyond reasonable doubt. The Court emphasized that the credibility of witnesses is best assessed by the trial court, which had the opportunity to observe their demeanor during trial. Absent any compelling reason to overturn the trial court’s findings, the appellate court deferred to its judgment.

The Court considered the following essential elements to be duly established:

• The identity of the buyer and the seller
• The object of the sale
• The consideration
• The delivery of the thing sold and payment therefor

The court reiterated that what is material is the proof that the transaction or sale transpired, coupled with the presentation in court of the corpus delicti.

FAQs

What is the difference between entrapment and instigation?	Entrapment is when law enforcement provides an opportunity for someone already inclined to commit a crime. Instigation is inducing an innocent person to commit a crime they wouldn’t otherwise commit.
Is it necessary to present the confidential informant as a witness in a drug case?	No, the testimony of the confidential informant is not always necessary, especially if the buy-bust operation was witnessed by law enforcement officers who can testify.
What is the chain of custody rule in drug cases?	The chain of custody rule refers to the procedures for handling seized drugs to ensure their integrity and prevent tampering from the time of seizure to presentation in court.
What is the corpus delicti in a drug case?	The corpus delicti is the body of the crime, which in drug cases refers to the seized drug itself. Its identity and integrity must be proven beyond reasonable doubt.
What happens if the police don’t follow the exact procedures for handling seized drugs?	While strict compliance is ideal, minor deviations from the procedures do not automatically invalidate the seizure, as long as the integrity and evidentiary value of the drugs are preserved.
What evidence did the prosecution use to prove Rosauro was guilty?	The prosecution presented testimonies from law enforcement officers who witnessed the buy-bust operation, forensic analysis confirming the substance was shabu, and the marked money used in the transaction.
What was the penalty imposed on Rosauro?	Rosauro was sentenced to life imprisonment and ordered to pay a fine of P500,000.00, consistent with the penalties prescribed under R.A. No. 9165 for the illegal sale of shabu.
What did Rosauro argue in his defense?	Rosauro claimed he was a victim of instigation, arguing that the confidential informant induced him to buy and sell the drugs. He also questioned the integrity of the chain of custody of the seized drugs.

The Supreme Court’s decision in this case underscores the importance of distinguishing between legitimate entrapment and unlawful instigation in drug enforcement. It reinforces the authority of law enforcement to conduct buy-bust operations while safeguarding individuals from being unfairly induced into criminal activity. The ruling also highlights the critical role of proper evidence handling and chain of custody to ensure the integrity of drug-related prosecutions.

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 of the Philippines vs. Eric Rosauro y Bongcawil, G.R. No. 209588, February 18, 2015