G.R. No. 173485 - People vs. Legaspi y Lucas

The case involves the People of the Philippines as the plaintiff-appellee and accused-appellant Nenita Legaspi y Lucas (also known as aNita).
Legaspi was charged with violating Section 5, Article II of Republic Act No. 9165 (the Dangerous Drugs Law).

On April 22, 2003, Legaspi was charged before the Pasig City RTC for allegedly selling, delivering, and giving away a heat-sealed transparent plastic sachet containing 0.16 gram of a white crystalline substance (methamphetamine hydrochloride or shabu).
The information stated that Legaspi, not being lawfully authorized to deal in dangerous drugs, conducted the sale to Police Officer Arturo San Andres, who was acting as a poseur-buyer in a buy-bust operation.

The operation was initiated after an informant reported drug-related activities at Centennial Village, Pinagbuhatan, Pasig City, identifying Legaspi as a drug pusher.
Police officers involved:

PO2 Arturo San Andres was designated as the poseur-buyer and was supplied with two marked one hundred-peso (P100.00) bills to be used as transaction money.
PO1 Janet A. Sabo, PO1 Aldrin Mariano (team leader), and PO1 Roland Panis served in supporting roles.
The team was under the supervision of Police Inspector Villaruel, who coordinated the buy-bust operation.

On reaching Centennial Village at about 5:15 p.m., after a briefing, San Andres, accompanied by the informant, approached Legaspi’s residence, initiating the encounter.

During the encounter, Legaspi was identified and engaged in a conversation regarding a “score” of shabu.
San Andres, acting as the poseur-buyer, offered P200.00. Legaspi then handed him a heat-sealed sachet containing the suspected drug.
The police signaled the successful transaction by San Andres scratching his head, and thereafter, Legaspi was taken into custody.
The seized specimen was sent to the PNP Crime Laboratory where a forensic chemist confirmed that it contained methamphetamine hydrochloride.
The prosecution also presented the marked currency and the forensic report as evidence.

At trial before the RTC, the prosecution’s evidence was largely based on the testimonies of the two police operatives (San Andres and Sabo) involved in the buy-bust operation.
Legaspi, during her testimony, denied selling shabu and claimed that the police had intruded by pushing open her door and taking her against her will while she was caring for her grandson.
The RTC gave greater weight to the police testimonies, applying the presumption that the officers performed their duties regularly and without ill motive.

On December 12, 2003, the RTC rendered its decision finding Legaspi guilty beyond reasonable doubt, imposing a penalty of life imprisonment and a fine of five hundred thousand pesos (P500,000.00). The court also ordered the confiscation of the sachet, directing it to be destroyed by the Philippine Drug Enforcement Agency.
Legaspi appealed her conviction. Following administrative protocols—especially those related to cases imposing severe penalties—the case was transferred to the Court of Appeals.
On January 16, 2006, the CA affirmed the RTC’s judgment in toto.

Legaspi contended that she was instigated by the police, arguing that she did not actively seek out the transaction but was approached by San Andres.
She further asserted that the absence of prior surveillance and the non-presentation of the informant in court raised doubts about the veracity of the buy-bust operation.
Her defense relied on the claim that the police’s role constituted instigation rather than merely setting up a legal entrapment.

Whether the conduct of the police in setting up the buy-bust operation constituted lawful entrapment or illegal instigation.

Determining if the use of a poseur-buyer and decoy tactics amounted to an inducement (instigation) or was simply a legitimate method (entrapment) under the law.

Whether the absence of prior surveillance and the non-presentation of the informant in court undermined the prosecution’s case.

Evaluating if these procedural aspects affected the credibility of the evidence and the reliability of the buy-bust operation.

Whether Legaspi’s defense of denial coupled with an assertion of instigation can prevail over the corroborative and affirmative testimonies of the police officers.

Assessing the weight given to the presumption of regularity in the performance of official duties by the police in drug-related operations.