OTHER EXCULPATORY CAUSES INSTIGATION

People vs Doria
Puno, J:
In 1995, members of the PNP Narcotics Command (Narcom), received information from 2civilian
informants (CI) that one Jun was engaged in illegal drug activities in Mandaluyong City.
The Narcom agents decided to entrap and arrest Jun in a buy-bust operation. The Narcom agents
formed Team Alpha they designated PO3 Manlangit as the poseur-buyer. At 7:20 a.m., Jun appeared.
PO3 Manlangit handed Jun the marked bills worth P1,600.00.The exchange of money for a
marijuana was completed. Jun asked PO3 to wait for an hour while he will get the mariujuana from
his associate. After a while, when Jun was about to give the marijuana,PO3 Manlangit forthwith
arrested Jun. They frisked Jun but did not find the marked bills on him. Upon inquiry, Jun left
the money to his associate Neneth. The team went to the house and they noticed a box under the
dining table. Suspicion aroused, PO3 Manlangit entered Neneths house and took hold of the box. He
peeked inside the box and found that it contained 10 bricks of what appeared to be dried marijuana
leaves. Simultaneous with the boxs discovery, SPO1 Badua recovered the marked bills from Neneth.
They arrested Neneth and Jun.They learned that Jun is Florencio Doria y Bolado while Neneth is
Violeta Gaddao y Catama. Both of them were charged with violation of Section 4, in relation to Section
21 of the Dangerous Drugs Actof 1972. The trial court found the existence of an organized/syndicated
crime group and sentenced both to death and pay a fine of P500,000.00 each. Hence, the automatic
review.
In a number of cases, the Court differentiated entrapment and instigation:
People vs Galicia - The instigator practically induces the would-be accused into the commission of the
offense and himself becomes a co-principal. In entrapment, ways and means are resorted to by the
peace officer for the purpose of trapping and capturing the lawbreaker in the execution of his criminal
plan.
People v. Tan Tiong - the Court of Appeals further declared that "entrapment is no bar to the
prosecution and conviction of the lawbreaker."
People v. Tiu Ua - Entrapment is not contrary to public policy. It is instigation that is deemed contrary
to public policy and illegal.
The test used in courts is a combination of objective (focused on acts of law enforcer) and subjective
(focused on predisposition of accused to commit the offense).
W/N the warrantless arrest of Doria was lawful? YES
Appellant was caught in the act of committing an offense. When an accused is apprehended in flagrante
delicto as a result of a buy bust operation, the police are not only authorized but duty-bound to arrest him
even without a warrant.

W/N warrantless arrest and search of her person and residence was lawful? NO
Accused-appellant Gaddao was not caught red-handed during the buy-bust operation to give ground for her
arrest under Section 5 (a) of Rule 113. She was not committing any crime. Contrary to the finding of the trial
court, there was no occasion at all for appellant Gaddao to flee from the policemen to justify her arrest in "hot
pursuit." Neither could the arrest of appellant Gaddao be justified under the second instance of Rule

113. "Personal knowledge" of facts in arrests without warrant under Section 5 (b) of Rule 113 must be based
upon "probable cause" which means an "actual belief or reasonable grounds of suspicion." If there is no
showing that the person who effected the warrantless arrest had, in his own right, knowledge of facts
implicating the person arrested to the perpetration of a criminal offense, the arrest is legally objectionable.

Since the warrantless arrest of accused-appellant Gaddao was illegal, it follows that the search of her
person and home and the subsequent seizure of the marked bills and marijuana cannot be deemed legal
as an incident to her arrest. The fact that the box containing about six (6) kilos of marijuana[137] was
found in the house of accused-appellant Gaddao does not justify a finding that she herself is guilty of
the crime charged.
Ruling: Doria sentenced to reclusion perpetua; Gaddao is acquitted.
NOTES:
Objects falling in plain view of an officer who has a right to be in the position to have that view are
subject to seizure even without a search warrant and may be introduced in evidence. The "plain view"
doctrine applies when the following requisites concur:
(a) the law enforcement officer in search of the evidence has a prior justification for an intrusion or
is in a position from which he can view a particular area;
(b) the discovery of the evidence in plain view is inadvertent;
(c) it is immediately apparent to the officer that the item he observes may be evidence of a crime,
contraband or otherwise subject to seizure.