VOL.

370, NOVEMBER 22, 2001 181

Tecson vs. Court of Appeals
*
G.R. No. 113218. November 22, 2001.

ALEJANDRO TECSON, petitioner,  vs.  HON. COURT OF APPEALS and PEOPLE OF THE
PHILIPPINES, respondents.

Criminal Law; Counterfeiting;  Illegal Possession and Use of False Treasury or Bank Notes; Elements;
Possession of fake dollar notes must be coupled with the act of using or at least with intent to use the same as
shown by a clear and deliberate overt act in order to constitute a crime.—The elements of the crime charged
for violation of Article 168 of the Revised Penal Code, are: 1) that any treasury or bank note or certificate or
other obligation and security payable to bearer, or any instrument payable to order or other document of
credit not payable to bearer is forged or falsified by another person; 2) that the offender knows that any of
the said instruments is forged or falsified; and 3) that he either used or possessed with intent to use any of
such forged or falsified instruments. Hence, possession of fake dollar notes must be coupled with the act of
using or at least with intent to use the same as shown by a clear and deliberate overt act in order to
constitute a crime, as was sufficiently proven in the case at bar.
Same; Same; Same; Witnesses; The testimony of even a single prosecution witness as long as it is positive
and clear and not arising from an improper motive to impute a serious offense to the accused, deserves full
credit.—The testimony of Pedro Labita which was corroborated by Johnny Marqueta and the presentation
during the trial of the ten (10) counterfeit US $100 dollar notes, which were confiscated from the petitioner
when he was arrested, proved beyond reasonable doubt the guilt of the petitioner for the crime of illegal
possession and use of fake US dollar notes under Article 168 of the Revised Penal Code. The trial court in its
decision characterized the respective testimonies of prosecution witnesses Labita and Marqueta as “clear,
straightforward, impartial and (thus) convincing”. We fail to discern any ill motive on the part of the said
prosecution witnesses in testifying against the petitioner whom they met for the first time only on April 28,
1990. Petitioner himself admitted during the trial that he was not aware of any ill motive on the part of the
prosecution witnesses to implicate him in the crime of counterfeiting US dollar notes. The settled rule is
that the testimony of even a lone prosecution witness as long as it is positive and clear and not arising from
an improper motive to impute a serious offense to the accused, deserves full credit.

_______________

* SECOND DIVISION.

182

182 SUPREME COURT REPORTS

ANNOTATED

Tecson vs. Court of Appeals

Same; Same; Same; Entrapment;  Mere possession coupled with intent to use the counterfeit US dollar
notes is sufficient to constitute the crime under Article 168 of the Revised Penal Code; The accused’s natural
reaction to the seeming interest of the poseur buyers to buy fake US dollar notes constitutes an overt act which
clearly showed his intention to use or sell the counterfeit US dollar notes; The instant case involves a case of
entrapment, which is allowed, and not instigation.—The absence of haggling as to the price of the subject
fake US dollar notes between the petitioner and the poseur buyers did not negate the fact of the buy-bust
operation. Significantly, the transaction for the purchase of fake US dollar notes was only at its inception
when the Central Bank operatives at that point decided to apprehend the petitioner. Mere possession
coupled with intent to use the counterfeit US dollar notes, as proven in the case at bar, is sufficient to
constitute the crime under Article 168 of the Revised Penal Code. The facts, as established by the evidence
adduced, show that the civilian informer introduced prosecution witnesses Labita and Marqueta to the
petitioner as the persons interested in buying fake US dollar notes. Having been thus convinced, petitioner
removed his wallet from his pocket and drew the ten (10) pieces of fake US $100 dollar notes to show the
same to the supposed buyers. Petitioner’s natural reaction to the seeming interest of the poseur buyers to
buy fake US dollar notes constitutes an overt act which clearly showed his intention to use or sell the
counterfeit US dollar notes. In any event, what we have here is a case of entrapment which is allowed, and
not instigation.
Same;  Same;  Same;  Searches and Seizures;  Buy-Bust Operations; Counterfeit US dollar notes which
were confiscated after the accused was caught in flagrante delicto by the prosecution witnesses during a buy-
bust operation are admissible in evidence, the same being a case of a legally valid warrantless arrest and
seizure of the evidence of the crime.—When the arrest of the petitioner was made, Labita did not have to rely
on the prearranged signal of the informer inasmuch as he (Labita) had unhindered view and appreciation of
what was then taking place right before his eyes. Hence, the ten (10) counterfeit US $100 dollar notes are
admissible in evidence for the reason that the petitioner was caught in flagrante delicto by the prosecution
witnesses during the said buy-bust operation. In other words, this is a case of a legally valid warrantless
arrest and seizure of the evidence of the crime.
Same; Same; Same; Same; Same; Frame-Up; The hackneyed defense of alleged frame-up of the accused
caught in flagrante delicto during a buy-bust operation has been viewed with disdain by the courts for it is
easy to concoct and difficult to prove.—In view of the foregoing, petitioner’s allega-

183

VOL. 370, NOVEMBER 22, 2001 183

Tecson vs. Court of Appeals

tion that he was framed-up by the Central Bank agents does not deserve any consideration. This
hackneyed defense of alleged frame-up of the accused caught in flagrante delicto during a buy-bust operation
has been viewed with disdain by the courts for it is easy to concoct and difficult to prove. Besides, there is a
legal presumption that public officers, including arresting officers, regularly perform their official duties.
That legal presumption was not overcome by any credible evidence to the contrary.

PETITION for review on certiorari of a decision of the Court of Appeals.

The facts are stated in the opinion of the Court.

     Alejandro Tecson for and in his own behalf.

DE LEON, JR., J.:
1
Before us on appeal by certiorari is the Decision   of the Court of Appeals in  CA-G.R. No.
11744  promulgated on August 31, 1993, and its Resolution dated December 23, 1993, denying
petitioner’s motion for reconsideration.
This case stemmed from a charge of illegal possession and use of counterfeit US dollar notes,
as defined and penalized under Article 168 of the Revised Penal Code, against herein petitioner
Alejandro Tecson y Florencio. The Information reads:

That on or about April 28, 1990, in the City of Manila, Philippines, the said accused did then and there
wilfully, unlawfully, feloniously and knowingly have in his possession and under his custody and control,
with intent to use and pass, as in fact he did use and pass ten (10) pieces of 100-US dollar notes of the
Federal Reserve Note, or a sum of $1,000.00 (US Dollar) to Pedro C. Labita, a confidential assistant of the
Central Bank of the Philippines, which bills were in the resemblance and similitude of the dollar bills issued
by the United States Government, the said accused knowing, as he did, that the said US dollar bills were
forged and falsified.
Contrary to law.

_______________
1 Penned by Associate Justice Antonio M. Martinez and concurred in by Associate Justices Serafin V. C. Guingona and

Eubolo G. Verzola, Twelfth Division; Rollo, pp. 22-32.

184

184 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

Tecson vs. Court of Appeals

Upon being arraigned on July 20, 1990, the petitioner entered the plea of “Not guilty” to the
charge. 2
After trial on the merits, the trial court rendered a Decision   dated May 6, 1991, the
dispositive portion of which reads:
WHEREFORE, the Court finds and declares accused ALEJANDRO F. TECSON, GUILTY beyond
reasonable doubt of the offense as defined in Art. 168 and penalized in Art. 166 paragraph 1 of the Revised
Penal Code; and hereby sentenced him to suffer an indeterminate penalty of from EIGHT (8) YEARS and
ONE (1) DAY of prision mayor in its medium period as minimum to TEN (10) YEARS, EIGHT (8) MONTHS
and ONE (1) DAY of prision mayor in its medium period as maximum; to pay a fine of P5,000.00; and to pay
the cost.
The Branch Clerk of Court is directed to burn the ten (10) pieces of 100 US dollar notes subject of the
offense.
SO ORDERED.

Aggrieved by the decision of the trial court, the petitioner filed an appeal with the Court of
Appeals which affirmed the judgment of the trial court  in toto  on August 31, 1993. Petitioner
sought
3
a reconsideration of the decision of the appellate court but it was denied on December 23,
1993.
Hence, the instant petition.
From the evidence adduced by the prosecution, it appears that a civilian informer personally
informed the Cash Department of the Central Bank of the Philippines that a certain Mang Andy
was involved in a syndicate engaging in the business of counterfeit US dollar notes. On April 26,
1990 a test-buy operation was ordered by Atty. Pio Chan, Jr., Chief of the Investigation Staff of
the Central Bank, which resulted in the purchase from Mang Andy of one (1) US dollar note for
Two Hundred Pesos (P200.00) that was found to be counterfeit by the Currency Analysis and
Redemption Division of the Central Bank. Consequently, Atty. Chan formed a team to conduct a
buy-bust operation composed of prosecution witnesses Pedro Labita, Confidential Assistant of the
Investigation Staff of

_______________
2 Penned by Judge Benito C. Se, Jr. Original Records, pp. 110-114.
3 Rollo, p. 45.

185
 VOL. 370, NOVEMBER 22, 2001 185
Tecson vs. Court of Appeals

the Central Bank, and Cpl. Johnny Marqueta, a representative of the US Secret Service, together
with William Pasive,
4
Warren Castillo and Carlos Toralde, Jr. also of the Investigation Staff of the
Central Bank.
On April 28, 1990, at about 11:30 o’clock in the morning, the team proceeded to the Jollibee
restaurant in Rizal Ave., Sta. Cruz, Manila. Three (3) members of the team namely: William
Pasive, Carlos Toralde, Jr., and Warren Castillo positioned themselves outside the Jollibee
restaurant while Pedro Labita and Johnny Marqueta proceeded inside. Subsequently, the civilian
informer arrived inside the restaurant and approached a man who was seated two (2) tables
away from where Labita and Marqueta were positioned. The informer introduced to Mang Andy
the said Pedro Labita and Johnny Marqueta as the persons interested in buying US dollar notes.
Apparently convinced, the man drew ten (10) pieces of US $100 dollar notes from his wallet. At
that moment, and upon a pre-arranged signal from the informer, Labita and Marqueta
introduced themselves as Central Bank operatives and apprehended5 the man called Mang Andy
whom they later identified as the herein petitioner Alejandro Tecson.
During the investigation at the Central Bank, the petitioner 6affixed his initial on the dorsal
portion7 of each of the ten (10) pieces of US $100 dollar notes   and signed the corresponding
receipt   for the8
said US dollar notes seized from him. He also executed a
“Pagpapatunay”   attesting to the proper conduct of the investigation by the Central Bank
operatives on the petitioner. Subsequent examination by the Currency Analysis and Redemption
Division of the Central Bank shows that 9the ten (10) pieces of US $100 dollar notes confiscated
from the petitioner are indeed counterfeit.

_______________
4 TSN dated August 29, 1990, pp. 8-10; TSN dated September 13, 1990, pp. 6-7.
5 TSN dated August 29, 1990, pp. 10-14; TSN dated September 13, 1990, pp. 8-9.
6 Exhibits “A” to “A-9”.
7 Exhibits “D” to “D-1”.
8 Exhibits “C” to “C-1”.
9 Exhibit “E”.

186

186 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

Tecson vs. Court of Appeals

The defense denied any liability of the petitioner for the crime of illegal possession and use of
counterfeit US dollar notes. Petitioner testified that he was inside the Jollibee restaurant in Sta.
Cruz, Manila on April 28, 1990 to meet a certain Nora Dizon, wife of his friend, Reynaldo de
Guzman, who previously sought his assistance in securing insurance payment bond. After Nora’s
arrival at the restaurant, she handed to him a sealed envelope which he accepted thinking that it
contained the documents pertaining to the insurance payment bond. Upon receipt of the sealed
envelope, however, two (2) male persons approached and immediately handcuffed him. They
dragged him outside the restaurant where three (3) other persons were waiting. After boarding a
taxi, they blindfolded the petitioner and
10
took him to the Central Bank building in F. B. Harrison
St., Manila where he was investigated.
 The investigators inquired from the petitioner about the source of the fake US dollar notes.
Petitioner vehemently denied having possession nor any knowledge as to the source of the fake
US dollar notes and claimed that the same were merely planted by the arresting officers.
Petitioner also claimed that he was tortured into initialing the dorsal portions of the ten (10)
counterfeit US $100 dollar notes and into
11
signing the Receipt and Inventory for Property/Articles
Seized as well as the “Pagpapatunay”.
12
The instant appeal by certiorari  reveals the following assignment of errors:
I

RESPONDENT COURT OF APPEALS FAILED TO FIND THAT THE PROSECUTION’S EVIDENCE IS

NOT SUFFICIENT TO SUPPORT PETITIONER’S CONVICTION OF THE CRIME CHARGED.

II

RESPONDENT COURT OF APPEALS GRAVELY ERRED IN NOT FINDING THAT THE EVIDENCE
PRESENTED BY THE PROSECUTION IS NOT ADMISSIBLE IN LAW.

_______________
10 TSN dated February 6, 1991, pp. 3-4.
11 TSN dated February 6, 1991, pp. 4-7.
12 Rollo, pp. 8-20.

187

VOL. 370, NOVEMBER 22, 2001 187

Tecson vs. Court of Appeals

In essence, petitioner claimed that no buy-bust operation took place inside the Jollibee restaurant
in Rizal Ave., Sta. Cruz, Manila on April 28, 1990 inasmuch as there was no haggling as to the
price between him and the poseur buyers, and that no money changed hands. He was merely
framed up by the Central Bank operatives by planting fake US dollar notes inside the envelope
which was handed to him by the wife of his friend who earlier asked for his assistance regarding
insurance payment bond. He accepted the envelope thinking that it contained the documents
pertaining to the insurance payment bond.
Assuming arguendo that a buy-bust operation was conducted, the petitioner claimed that the
testimony of prosecution witness Pedro Labita to the effect that the civilian informer had to
convince the petitioner negated any alleged intent on his part to sell counterfeit US dollar notes
to the poseur buyers. In addition, he averred that prosecution witnesses Labita and Marqueta
had no personal knowledge as to “petitioner’s alleged possession of counterfeit US dollar notes as
they merely relied on the predetermined signal of the civilian informer before making the arrest.
Hence, the ten (10) counterfeit US $100 dollar notes allegedly confiscated from him (petitioner)
incidental to his arrest are inadmissible in evidence. Likewise, his initial on the dorsal portion of
the said US dollar notes and his signature on the “Pagpapatunay” are inadmissible for having
been obtained without the aid of counsel. That is the version of the petitioner.
The respondents, represented by the Office of the Solicitor General (OSG), countered in their
Comment that the absence of haggling among the parties to the buy-bust operation did not
negate petitioner’s actual possession and use of the ten (10) counterfeit US $100 dollar notes,
which fact of possession is punishable by law. Prosecution witnesses Pedro Labita and Johnny
Marqueta, who acted as poseur buyers,13
testified that they saw the petitioner drew the subject
fake US dollar notes from his wallet  in order to sell the same to them.
_______________
13 Comment. Rollo, pp. 59-71.

188

188 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

Tecson vs. Court of Appeals

While respondents, through counsel, conceded that the “Pagpapatunay” and the “Receipt and
Inventory for Property/Articles Seized” which were signed by the petitioner during his custodial
investigation are inadmissible in evidence for having been obtained in the absence of his counsel,
they maintained that there 14
are sufficient independent evidence on record to prove his guilt
beyond reasonable 15doubt. 16
By way of reply,  the petitioner, who is now 70 years of age,  contends that possession should
be coupled with intent to use the counterfeit US dollar bills in order to hold him liable under the
provision of Article 168 of the Revised Penal Code.
Article 168 of the Revised Penal Code provides that:
ART. 168. Illegal possession and use of false treasury or bank notes and other instruments of credit.—Unless
the act be one of those coming under the provisions of any of the preceding articles, any person who shall
knowingly use or have in his possession, with intent to use any of the false or falsified instruments referred
to in this section, shall suffer the penalty next lower in degree than that prescribed in said articles.

The elements of the crime charged for violation of Article 168 of the Revised Penal Code, are: 1)
that any treasury or bank note or certificate or other obligation and security payable to bearer, or
any instrument payable to order or other document of credit not payable to bearer is forged or
falsified by another person; 2) that the offender knows that any of the said instruments is forged
or falsified; and 3) that
17
he either used or  possessed with intent to use  any of such forged or
falsified instruments.   Hence, possession of fake dollar notes must be coupled with the act of
using or at least with18intent to use the same as shown by a clear and deliberate overt act in order
to constitute a crime,  as was sufficiently proven in the case at bar.

_______________
14 Ibid.
15 Rollo,pp. 81-86.
16 Rollo,p. 111.
17 The Revised Penal Code by Luis B. Reyes, Twelfth Edition, Revised 1981, p. 203.
18 People v. Digoro, 123 Phil. 196, 199; 16 SCRA 376 (1966).

189

VOL. 370, NOVEMBER 22, 2001 189

Tecson vs. Court of Appeals

We find no cogent reason to overturn the decision of respondent Court of Appeals which affirmed
the judgment of the trial court finding the petitioner guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime
charged in the case at bar. The prosecution established, through the testimonies of Pedro Labita
and Johnny Marqueta, that a buy-bust operation was conducted by the combined agents of the
Central Bank of the Philippines and the US Secret Service, and that the petitioner was therein
caught in  flagrante delicto  in the possession of and in the act of offering to sell counterfeit US
dollar notes. During the buy-bust operation, prosecution witnesses Labita and Marqueta were
introduced by the civilian informer to the petitioner as interested buyers of fake US dollar notes.
When the petitioner was in the act of drawing the ten (10) pieces of fake US $100 dollar notes
from his wallet, he was immediately placed under arrest by Labita and his team.
The testimony of Pedro Labita which was corroborated by Johnny Marqueta and the
presentation during the trial of the ten (10) counterfeit US $100 dollar notes, which were
confiscated from the petitioner when he was arrested, proved beyond reasonable doubt the guilt
of the petitioner for the crime of illegal possession and use of fake US dollar notes under Article
168 of the Revised Penal Code. The trial court in its decision characterized the respective
testimonies of prosecution
19
witnesses Labita and Marqueta as “clear, straightforward, impartial
and (thus) convincing.”   We fail to discern any ill motive on the part of the said prosecution
witnesses in testifying against the petitioner whom they met for the first time only on April 28,
1990. Petitioner himself admitted during the trial that he was not aware of any ill motive on the
part of
20
the prosecution witnesses to implicate him in the crime of counterfeiting US dollar
notes.  The settled rule is that the testimony of even a lone prosecution witness as long as it is
positive and clear and not arising
21
from an improper motive to impute a serious offense to the
accused, deserves full credit.

_______________
19 Decision, p. 4, Original Records, pp. 110-114.
20 TSN dated February 6, 1991, pp. 11-12.
21 Garcia v. CA, 254 SCRA 542, 551 (1996) citing People v. Abelita, 210 SCRA 497, 503 (1992).

190

190 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

Tecson vs. Court of Appeals

The absence of haggling as to the price of the subject fake US dollar notes between the petitioner
and the poseur buyers did not negate the fact of the buy-bust operation. Significantly, the
transaction for the purchase of fake US dollar notes was only at its inception when the Central
Bank operatives at that point decided to apprehend the petitioner. Mere possession coupled with
intent to use the counterfeit US dollar notes, as proven in the case at bar, is sufficient to
constitute the crime under Article 168 of the Revised Penal Code.
The facts, as established by the evidence adduced, show that the civilian informer introduced
prosecution witnesses Labita and Marqueta to the petitioner as the persons interested in buying
fake US dollar notes. Having been thus convinced, petitioner removed his wallet from his pocket
and drew the ten (10) pieces of fake US $100 dollar notes to show the same to the supposed
buyers. Petitioner’s natural reaction to the seeming interest of the poseur buyers to buy fake US
dollar notes constitutes an overt act which clearly showed his intention to use or sell the
counterfeit US dollar notes. In any event, what we have here is a case of entrapment which is
allowed, and not instigation.
Petitioner cannot validly claim that he had no intention of committing the crime by citing the
testimony of Pedro Labita to the effect that he (petitioner) was merely convinced by the civilian
informer that Labita and Marqueta were interested to buy fake US dollar notes. The pertinent
portion of Labita’s testimony reads, thus:

ASST. CITY PROSECUTOR:

Q All right, let me clarify this, Mr. Witness. This
informant or informer that you mentioned, he also
arrived there at the Jollibee Restaurant, Mr.
Witness?
A Yes, sir, but he arrived late.
Q So, he arrived late. Now, after the arrival of this
informant at the Jollibee Restaurant, what did
this informant do inside the Jollibee restaurant
while you were there, Mr. Witness?
A Our informer tried to convince the accused and
after convincing that we are the buyers of said
counterfeit notes, he immediately draws (sic) from
his wallet that (sic) counterfeit notes,

191

VOL. 370, NOVEMBER 22, 2001 191

Tecson vs. Court of Appeals
22
and upon pre-signal of our informer, we immediately apprehended the accused, sir.
The above-quoted testimony of prosecution witness Labita negates the petitioner’s claim that
he was merely instigated into committing the crime by the civilian informer. It appears that prior
to the buy-bust operation, the petitioner already had the intention to sell counterfeit US dollar
notes as he, in fact, had an agreement with the civilian informer to arrange for a meeting with
interested buyers. In other words, the civilian informer did not have to convince the petitioner to
sell fake US dollar notes during the buy-bust operation on April 28, 1990 inside the Jollibee
restaurant in Rizal Ave., Sta. Cruz, Manila. What the informer actually did during the buy-bust
operation was simply to convince the petitioner that prosecution witnesses Labita and Marqueta
were interested buyers of counterfeit US dollar notes.
The petitioner cannot validly impugn the admissibility of the subject ten (10) counterfeit US
$100 dollar notes confiscated from him when he was thus arrested. It is clear from the testimony
of prosecution witness Pedro Labita that he saw the petitioner drew several pieces of fake US
dollar notes from his wallet to show to them after they were introduced by the civilian informer
as the interested buyers while they were inside the Jollibee restaurant, thus:

ASST. CITY PROSECUTOR:

Q Now, Mr. Witness, after this Johnny Marqueta
and you were introduced to the accused, what did
the accused do after the introduction?
A He immediately drew his counterfeit dollar notes
from his wallet and right after that we identified
23
ourselves as agents of the Central Bank, sir.

When the arrest of the petitioner was made, Labita did not have to rely on the prearranged signal
of the informer inasmuch as he (Labita) had unhindered view and appreciation of what was then
taking place right before his eyes. Hence, the ten (10) counterfeit

_______________
22 TSN dated August 29, 1990, p. 12.
23 TSN dated August 29, 1990, p. 13.

192

192 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

Tecson vs. Court of Appeals

US $100 dollar notes are admissible in evidence for the reason that the petitioner was caught
in  flagrante delictoby the prosecution witnesses during the said buy-bust operation. In other
words, this is a case of a legally valid warrantless arrest and seizure of the evidence of the crime.
In view of the foregoing, petitioner’s allegation that he was framed-up by the Central Bank
agents does not deserve any consideration. This hackneyed defense of alleged frame-up of the
accused caught in flagrante delictoduring a buy-bust operation
24
has been viewed with disdain by
the courts for it is easy to concoct and difficult to prove. Besides, there is a legal presumption
25
that public officers, including arresting officers, regularly perform their official duties.   That
legal presumption was not overcome by any credible evidence to the contrary.
Apparently clutching at the last straws, as it were, petitioner also alleged that he was tortured
into signing the dorsal portions of the fake ten (10) US $100 dollar notes confiscated from him by
the arresting officers and the “Pagpapatunay.” Other than his self-serving testimony, the
petitioner failed to prove his allegation of torture. Also, he did not file any criminal or
administrative action against his alleged tormentors. Suffice it to state that petitioner’s
conviction for the crime charged in the information is not anchored on the evidence obtained
during his custodial investigation which were disregarded by respondent appellate court for
having been obtained without the assistance of his counsel.
In sum, there is no reversible error in the subject Decision of the Court of Appeals.
WHEREFORE, the Decision of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. No. 11744 is hereby
AFFIRMED. No costs.
SO ORDERED.

     Bellosillo (Chairman), Mendoza, Quisumbing and Buena, JJ., concur.

_______________
24 People v. Chen Tiz Chang, 325 SCRA 776, 803 (2000); People v. Sy Bing Yok, 309 SCRA 28, 38 (1999).
25 People v. Gonzales, 230 SCRA 291, 296 (1994).

193

VOL. 370, NOVEMBER 22, 2001 193

Hongkong and Shanghai Banking Corporation
Employees Union vs. National Labor Relations
Commission

Judgment affirmed.
 Notes.—Prior surveillance is not a prerequisite for the validity of an entrapment operation,
especially when the buy-bust team members were accompanied to the scene by their informant.
(People vs. Lacbanes, 270 SCRA 193[1997])
Entrapment was unknown in common law—it is a judicially created twentieth-century
American doctrine that evolved from the increasing use of informers and undercover agents in
the detection of crimes, particularly liquor and narcotics offenses. (People vs. Doria,  301 SCRA
668 [1999])