People v. Pagkalinawan CASE DIGEST

PEOPLE vs.
PAGKALINAWAN
G.R. No. 184805 |March 3, 2010
THE FACTS
On July 20, 2004, at around 11:00 p.m., a

confidential informant arrived at the office of the
Station Anti-Illegal Drugs-Special Operations
Task Force (SAID-SOTF) of the Taguig City Police
and reported the illegal activities of a certain
Berto, a resident of Captain Ciano St., Ibayo,
Tipaz, Taguig City.
The leader of the group, Police Senior Inspector

Romeo Paat, immediately formed a buy-bust
team with PO1 Memoracion as the poseur-buyer
and the rest of the group as back-up. The buybust money was then marked and recorded in
the blotter. Afterwards, the team, along with the
police informant, proceeded to where Berto
lives.
Upon reaching the place, PO1 Memoracion and

the informant alighted from the service vehicle
and walked towards Berto, who was leaning
against a wall, while the rest of the team
positioned themselves in strategic locations
from where they could see clearly what was
going on.
The informant introduced PO1 Memoracion to

Berto as a taxi driver who wanted to
buy shabu. Berto immediately took the PhP 500
buy-bust money from PO1 Memoracion and
showed
three
(3)
plastic
sachets
containing shabu in his palm, and asked the
poseur-buyer to pick one. Once PO1 Memoracion
took hold of the shabu, he took off his cap,
which was the pre-arranged signal for the rest of
the team to close in and arrest Berto.
Berto suddenly became suspicious of PO3 Vicua,

who was coming up to them, so he attempted to
flee the scene. PO1 Memoracion was able to
stop him and ordered him to empty his
pockets. The
other
two
(2)
sachets
of shabu were recovered from him and the
appropriate
markings
were
made
on
them. Berto was identified later on as appellant
Pagkalinawan.
Afterwards, the team brought appellant to its

headquarters
in
Taguig
City
for
investigation. After the police investigator made
the request for laboratory examination, the
RTC
found
accused-appellant
confiscated
transparent
plastic
sachets The
containing crystalline substance were positively Victorio Pagkalinawan guilty of violation of
Sections 5 and 11, Article II of Republic Act No.
identified to be shabu.
(RA) 9165 or the Comprehensive Dangerous
Drugs Act of 2002. Upon appeal, the Court of
Appeals affirmed the decision made by the RTC.
THE ISSUE
Whether or not the act of decoy solicitation or
soliciting drugs from the accused during a buybust operation renders the same to be invalid.
THE RULING
The Supreme Court held that a police officers
act of soliciting drugs from the accused during a
buy-bust operation, or what is known as a decoy
solicitation, is not prohibited by law and does
not render the buy-bust operation invalid.
Contrary to appellants argument that the acts of
the informant and the poseur-buyer in
pretending
that
they
were
in
need
of shabu instigated or induced him to violate the
Anti-Drugs Law
The evidence clearly shows that the police

officers used entrapment, not instigation, to
capture appellant in the act of selling a
dangerous
drug. It
was
the
confidential
informant who made initial contact with
appellant when he introduced PO1 Memoracion
as a buyer for shabu.
Appellant immediately took the PhP 500 buybust money from PO1 Memoracion and showed
him three pieces of sachet containing shabu and
asked him to pick one. Once PO1 Memoracion
got the shabu, he gave the pre-arranged signal
and
appellant
was
arrested. The
facts
categorically show a typical buy-bust operation
as a form of entrapment. The police officers
conduct was within the acceptable standards for
the fair and honorable administration of justice
This was clarified by the Court in People v. Sta

Maria:
The solicitation of drugs from appellant by the

informant utilized by the police merely furnishes
evidence of a course of conduct. The police
received an intelligence report that appellant
has been habitually dealing in illegal drugs.
They duly acted on it by utilizing an informant to
effect a drug transaction with appellant. There
was no showing that the informant induced the
appellant to sell illegal drugs to him.

People v. Pagkalinawan CASE DIGEST

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

People v. Pagkalinawan CASE DIGEST

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

People v. Pagkalinawan CASE DIGEST

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

PEOPLE vs.

On July 20, 2004, at around 11:00 p.m., a

The leader of the group, Police Senior Inspector

Upon reaching the place, PO1 Memoracion and

The informant introduced PO1 Memoracion to

Berto suddenly became suspicious of PO3 Vicua,

Afterwards, the team brought appellant to its

The evidence clearly shows that the police

This was clarified by the Court in People v. Sta

The solicitation of drugs from appellant by the

You might also like