PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, vs. DIONISIO TADEPA y MERIQUILLO .
- G.R. Number: G.R. No. 100354
- Promulgated: 1995-05-26
- Ponente: Bellosillo, J.
Doctrine
Entrapment (buy-bust) is permissible if conducted with legal and constitutional circumspection and must be distinguished from instigation where the instigator plants criminal intent.
Determination of entrapment vs. instigation requires clear proof of the manner of initial contact and all elements of the sale from initial approach to delivery.
The presumption of regularity in a peace officer's performance of duty does not trump the accused's constitutional presumption of innocence; corroborative evidence may be necessary to meet the State's burden beyond reasonable doubt.
Facts
Buy-bust or entrapment operations are used to apprehend illegal drug dealers; entrapment is permitted if done with legal and constitutional circumspection and distinguished from instigation where intent originates from the instigator's mind (definition and distinction).
In deciding entrapment vs. instigation, the manner of initial contact between the poseur-buyer and alleged pusher is material; all elements of the sale must be shown from initial contact to delivery.
The appellant argued weakness in the prosecution's case because the alleged poseur-buyer, Boy Lim, was not presented; Sgt. Pascua only watched from afar and lacked personal knowledge of the conversation or transaction.
The Court found the uncorroborated testimony of the state's key witness, Sgt. Alfiler, insufficient to induce moral certainty; presumption of regularity of a peace officer's duty cannot override the accused's constitutional presumption of innocence.
Issues
Whether the prosecution proved the accused's guilt beyond reasonable doubt given the absence of the alleged poseur-buyer and lack of corroborative evidence.
Whether the facts showed entrapment or instigation requiring acquittal.
Ruling
The Court held the uncorroborated testimony of the state's witness insufficient; the presumption of regularity of a police officer cannot overcome the accused's presumption of innocence, and failure of the State to meet its burden requires discharge.
The Decision of the Court of Appeals affirming conviction is REVERSED and accused Dionisio Tadepa y Meriquillo is ACQUITTED on reasonable doubt and for insufficiency of evidence; order immediate release unless held for another lawful cause.