Entrapment vs.

Instigation
Wednesday, 15 August 2018 2:42 AM

Entrapment Instiga
Basic Concept the in
conte
institu
conce
and th
would
tricke
absolu
Hence
ACQU
•

Origin of the criminal intent originates from the offender himself instiga
criminal Intent the co
the co
ways and means are resorted to for the purpose of trapping and
capturing the lawbreaker in the execution of his criminal plan.
Result: No bar to prosecution Acqui
Ele
1. act
law
crim
2. orig
law
suc
act
 ation
nducement of one to commit a crime not
emplated by him, for the mere purpose of
uting a criminal prosecution against him
eption and planning of an offense by an officer
he procurement of its commission by one who
d not have perpetrated it except for the
ery, persuasion, or fraud of the officer
utory cause. Crime done but no penalty.
e, it is a defense
UITTAL BASIS: public policy.
to deter unlawful government activities and to
preclude the implication of judicial approval of
impermissible government conduct.
It is a rule of fairness that bars a conviction as a
result of improper police conduct, contrary to
public policy.
ator practically induces the will-be accused into
ommission of the offense and himself becomes
o-principal.

ittal
ements to use instigation as a defense:
ts of persuasion, trickery, or fraud carried out by
w enforcers to induce a defendant to commit a
me
gin of the criminal design is in the minds of the
w enforcers rather than that of the defendant,
ch that the crime is the product of the creative
tivity of the law enforcers
 crim
2. orig
law
suc
act
Conduct of the law enforcer merely affords opportunity to the
offender to commit a crime.
• Legitimate crime detection
People vs. Marcos 1. entrapper resorts to ways and means to trap and capture
a lawbreaker while executing his criminal plan
2. means originates from the mind of the criminal
3. Criminal is not exempt from liability

People v. Lua Chu To be deplored Con

and Uy Se Tieng • has
Rule: Not a defense even if facilities for its commission were bein
purposely placed in his way, or that the criminal act was done at
the ‘decoy solicitation’ of persons seeking to expose the
criminal, or that detectives feigning complicity in the act were
present and apparently assisting in its commission
• Especially if habitually committed, and the solicitation merely
furnishes evidence of a course of conduct.
Presumption of where no ill-motive on the part of the arresting officers to impute
Regularity so serious a charge can be shown.
People vs. Pacis credence is given to the narration of an incident by prosecution
witnesses who are officers of the law and presumed to have
performed their duties in a regular manner in the absence of
evidence to the contrary
Tests in 1. Subjective - focus of the inquiry is on the accused's
Determining the predisposition to commit the offense charged, his state of mind
Occurrence of and inclination before his initial exposure to government
Entrapment agents.
a. If the accused’s traits, previous offenses and activities,
and his clear eagerness in committing the crime, etc.
demonstrate a propensity to commit the offense readily,
his or her defense of instigation will fail even if a police
agent used an unduly persuasive inducement.
b. GENERALLY ACCEPTED
c. allows the defense only if the criminal act was the
me
gin of the criminal design is in the minds of the
w enforcers rather than that of the defendant,
ch that the crime is the product of the creative
tivity of the law enforcers

1. instigator practically induces the would-be

defendant into committing the offense, and
himself becomes a co-principal.
2. the law enforcer conceives the commission
of the crime and suggests to the accused
who adopts the idea and carries it into
execution.
3. Offender is exempt from liability
ndemned
sometimes been held to prevent the act from
ng criminal or punishable
 and his clear eagerness in committing the crime, etc.
demonstrate a propensity to commit the offense readily,
his or her defense of instigation will fail even if a police
agent used an unduly persuasive inducement.
b. GENERALLY ACCEPTED
c. allows the defense only if the criminal act was the
product of the creative activity of law enforcement
officers.
d. once it is established that a defendant engaged in an
illegal activity as a result of his own pre-existing readiness
to do so, it becomes virtually irrelevant that the
government’s blandishments might have been sufficient
to induce some hypothetically innocent person to commit
the same criminal acts
e. The following criteria may be used to determine pre-
disposition of defendant to commit the offense:
i. defendant’s initial suggestion of the crime
ii. readiness to commit it
iii. familiarity with the criminal activit
iv. defendant’s possession of the illegal contraband
prior to the alleged entrapment
v. defendant’s ready access to the contraband or
articles subject of the offense
vi. ability to collect a large quantity of contraband in a
relatively short time
vii. readily acquiesced in the commission of the
proposed offense
f. Application to IPR cases: the following evidentiary
matters may be utilized to prove that the accused in the
criminal infringement case was in fact predisposed to
commit the offense charged, on the basis of the ”
subjective test” criteria
i. Display of the infringing articles: to establish
predisposition, the following methods may be used
i. Test buys
ii. Surveillance operations
iii. Sales invoice/receipts and books of account
ii. Availability of ready-made articles
iii. Infringing goods in commercial quantities
2. Objective - focus is on the conduct of the law enforcers
apprehending the accused.
a. there arises a presumption that “a law-abiding person
would normally resist the temptation to commit a crime
that is presented by the simple opportunity to act
 iii. Infringing goods in commercial quantities
2. Objective - focus is on the conduct of the law enforcers
apprehending the accused.
a. there arises a presumption that “a law-abiding person
would normally resist the temptation to commit a crime
that is presented by the simple opportunity to act
unlawfully.”
3. Subjective and objective tests are NOT mutually exclusive.