People v. Lapatha and Jopson
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: Two criminal cases were filed: Criminal Case No. 13118 against Andru Lapatha and Joseph Maria Jopson for violation of Section 21, Article II of Republic Act No. 6425 (selling marijuana); and Criminal Case No. 13119 against Andru Lapatha alone for violation of Section 8 of the same Act (possession of marijuana). The accused pleaded not guilty. A joint trial was agreed upon. The prosecution alleged that on March 2, 1981, in Iloilo City, Lapatha and Jopson, conspiring and confederating, unlawfully sold one matchbox of dried Indian Hemp (Marijuana) to Susie Ariete inside the University of San Agustin compound. Susie Ariete, an informer for the Constabulary Anti-Narcotics Unit (CANU), approached Jopson asking for "stuff" (marijuana). Jopson initially said he had none but offered to ask a friend. Later, Jopson introduced Lapatha to Ariete, stating Lapatha owned the "stuff." Ariete agreed to buy one "stuff." They met again at the school cafeteria where Lapatha told Ariete to get the matchbox from the table. Ariete smelled it and said she would pay after showing it to her friend. She paid P45.00 to Lapatha, who told her to give it to Jopson, who then gave it back to Lapatha. Ariete then gave the matchbox to Sgt. Legaspi. The CANU men observed the transaction. Marked money was recovered from Lapatha, and the contents of the matchbox tested positive for marijuana. Procedural History: The trial court found Andru Lapatha and Joseph Maria Jopson guilty beyond reasonable doubt of violation of Section 4 of Republic Act No. 6425 as amended by Presidential Decree No. 1675, sentencing them to life imprisonment and a fine of P20,000.00. Andru Lapatha withdrew his appeal, leaving Joseph Maria Jopson as the sole appellant. The trial court characterized the arrest as a "pure case of entrapment." The Petition: Appellant Jopson contended that the trial court erred in finding that he conspired, confederated, and helped Andru Lapatha in the sale of marijuana leaves.
Issue(s)
Whether appellant Joseph Maria Jopson conspired and confederated with Andru Lapatha in the sale of marijuana, considering the defense of instigation. Whether the acts of the CANU informer constituted instigation, thereby barring prosecution, considering the distinction between entrapment and instigation.
Ruling
The Supreme Court reversed and set aside the judgment of the trial court. Appellant Joseph Maria Jopson was acquitted of the crime charged based on reasonable doubt. He was ordered released from detention unless held for some other legal cause.
Ratio Decidendi
On the issue of conspiracy and instigation: The Supreme Court found merit in the appeal and disagreed with the trial court's finding of entrapment. The Court meticulously examined the evidence, noting that the CANU informer, Susie Ariete, admitted that she pleaded and insisted that Lapatha contact a friend to sell marijuana, and that she was the one who asked about it. Ariete's testimony indicated that Lapatha was not offering the marijuana, but she was insisting and pleading to buy from him. Similarly, when Ariete first met Jopson, she pleaded and insisted on her desire to buy marijuana, disguising her need for it. Jopson agreed to contact Lapatha not out of a desire to sell, but due to Susie's plea and her apparent need. The Court highlighted that Jopson denied participation in the sale and was not found in possession of marijuana or marked money at the time of arrest; the marked money was recovered from Lapatha, and the matchbox of marijuana was in the possession of Sgt. Legaspi. Furthermore, the prosecution witnesses presented inconsistencies regarding the location of the sale, the presence of individuals, and the place where the marked money was received, casting doubt on their credibility. The Court cited U.S. v. Phelps and People v. Abella and Bacula to emphasize that when government agents encourage or induce individuals to commit a crime to prosecute them, such conduct is reprehensible and leads to acquittal. On the distinction between entrapment and instigation: The Court clarified that in entrapment, "ways and means are resorted to for the purpose of trapping and capturing the law breakers in the execution of their criminal plan." Conversely, in instigation, "the instigator practically induces the would-be defendant into the commission of the offense, and himself becomes a co-principal." The Court held that instigation is a bar to prosecution, while entrapment is not. In this case, Jopson was not actively seeking buyers; his contact with Lapatha was a result of Susie Ariete's persistent pleas. The Court concluded that Susie, as a CANU informer, instigated Jopson to commit the offense by pretending to be in urgent need of marijuana. The Court also noted the uncertainty regarding Susie's state of mind, as she admitted to taking Mercudol due to personal problems, raising doubt as to whether she was purely fulfilling her duty as an informer or seeking marijuana for personal satisfaction. Given these circumstances and the doubtful credibility of the prosecution witnesses, the Court found that appellant Joseph Maria Jopson was not guilty beyond reasonable doubt.
Main Doctrine
Instigation, as opposed to entrapment, is a defense that bars prosecution and leads to acquittal because the accused would have to be considered a co-principal to a crime they were induced to commit. The Supreme Court reversed the conviction of appellant Jopson, finding that the CANU informer instigated the commission of the offense by persistently pleading with Jopson to procure marijuana, rather than merely trapping him in the execution of a criminal plan.