G.R. No. 178065 - People vs. Tapere y Polpol

The accused, Arnold P. Tapere y Polpol, was charged and later convicted for illegally selling shabu under Section 5, Article II of Republic Act No. 9165 (Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002).
Tapere’s arrest resulted from a coordinated buy-bust operation conducted by the Philippine Drug Enforcement Agency (PDEA) in Iligan City on September 2, 2002.
Prior complaints and surveillance had already placed Tapere on the PDEA watch list for drug pushing, prompting further investigation.

Based on a tip from a concerned neighbor and a PDEA informant’s report, agents conducted surveillance and a test buy from Tapere on August 30 – September 1, 2002.
After positive results from the test buy, the PDEA team prepared for a buy-bust operation, which included securing a certified P100.00 bill from the Office of the City Prosecutor as the buy-bust money.
During the pre-operation briefing, the team designated Gabriel Salgado to act as the poseur buyer, complete with instructions on how to signal the consummation of the transaction (notably by scratching his head).

At approximately 7:10 p.m., near a row of stalls and a blacksmith shop in San Antonio, Iligan City, the team positioned themselves strategically.
Salgado approached Tapere, engaged him in conversation, and subsequently handed over the P100.00 bill as payment for a sachet of shabu.
Tapere delivered a heat-sealed plastic sachet containing methamphetamine hydrochloride to Salgado, after which the agents, who were in position, immediately intervened and arrested him.
During and after the apprehension, additional evidence was gathered: the recovery of the certified bill from Tapere’s possession and the subsequent voluntary production of three more sachets.

Immediately after the arrest, the confiscated sachets (marked aAT-1a to aAT-4a) were taken to the PDEA headquarters for proper inventory and subsequent laboratory examination.
A request for laboratory testing was promptly prepared and sent to the PNP Crime Laboratory, where the sachets were examined.
Chemistry Report No. D-083-02, dated September 4, 2002, confirmed the presence of methamphetamine hydrochloride, with detailed weights for each sachet, thereby establishing the corpus delicti.

Tapere and his wife provided a version of events that differed from the official account.
According to their narrative, Tapere acted upon a request by his neighbor, Salgado—whom he knew personally—to purchase shabu for Salgado’s use.
Tapere claimed that, due to the request coming from someone he knew and for fear of creating personal conflict, he could not refuse, contending that this amounted to instigation rather than entrapment.

The Regional Trial Court (RTC) rendered a judgment on April 15, 2003, convicting Tapere and sentencing him to life imprisonment along with a fine of P500,000.00.
The Court of Appeals (CA) affirmed the RTC’s decision on February 27, 2007, finding no merit in the defense’s contention regarding instigation.
Tapere subsequently appealed, arguing that his commission of the offense was the result of instigation and that this should serve as an absolutory cause for acquittal.

Whether an arrest resulting from a buy-bust operation, even if allegedly induced by an informant posing as a buyer, constitutes an instance of instigation that could absolve the accused from criminal liability.

The accused contends that his decision to sell was not entirely voluntary but was induced by an instigative act on the part of the poseur buyer.
The legal question centers on whether instigation, as alleged by Tapere, qualifies as an absolutory cause under the law.

Whether the State adequately established the essential elements of the crime of illegal sale of dangerous drugs.

Identification of the transacting parties (seller and buyer) and the object sold (a sachet containing shabu) needed to be conclusively evidenced.
The requirement that the delivery of the drug and the receipt of the payment (P100.00) be proven beyond reasonable doubt.
Whether the adherence to standard procedures during the buy-bust operation sufficiently maintained the integrity of the evidence.