Remember the case I wrote about last week? This is where the accused was charged with trafficking minors for prostitution. One of his defenses was that he was set up to commit the crime. He therefore argued that he could not be held accountable since the authorities baited him to do it. This is called instigation. And if indeed it was instigation, the accused goes scot-free. Instigation is invalid; only entrapment is lawful. So, what is the difference between the two?

In People v. Mendoza, the Court clarified the distinctions between instigation and entrapment, viz.:

“Instigation means luring the accused into a crime that he, otherwise, had no intention to commit, in order to prosecute him. On the other hand, entrapment is the employment of ways and means in order to trap or capture a lawbreaker. Instigation presupposes that the criminal intent to commit an offense originated from the inducer and not the accused, who had no intention to commit the crime and would not have committed it were it not for the initiatives by the inducer.

“In entrapment, the criminal intent or design to commit the offense charged originates in the mind of the accused; the law enforcement officials merely facilitate the apprehension of the criminal by employing ruses and schemes. In instigation, the law enforcers act as active co-principals. Instigation leads to the acquittal of the accused, while entrapment does not bar prosecution and conviction.

“Further, in People v. Dorio, the Court explained the litmus test to determine the validity of an entrapment operation, to wit:

“Initially, an accused has the burden of providing sufficient evidence that the government induced him to commit the offense. Once established, the burden shifts to the government to show otherwise. When entrapment is raised as a defense, American federal courts and a majority of state courts use the ‘subjective’ or ‘origin of intent’ test laid down in Sorrells v. United States to determine whether entrapment actually occurred. The focus of the inquiry is on the accused’s predisposition to commit the offense charged, his state of mind, and inclination before his initial exposure to government agents.

“All relevant facts such as the accused’s mental and character traits, his past offenses, activities, his eagerness in committing the crime, his reputation, etc., are considered to assess his state of mind before the crime. The predisposition test emphasizes the accused’s propensity to commit the offense rather than the officer’s misconduct and reflects an attempt to draw a line between a ‘trap for the unwary innocent and the trap for the unwary criminal.’

“Some states, however, have adopted the ‘objective’ test. This test was first authoritatively laid down in the case of Grossman v. State rendered by the Supreme Court of Alaska. Several other states have subsequently adopted the test by judicial pronouncement or legislation. Here, the court considers the nature of the police activity involved and the propriety of police conduct. The inquiry is focused on the inducements used by government agents, on police conduct, not on the accused and his predisposition to commit the crime. For the goal of the defense is to deter unlawful police conduct. The test of entrapment is whether the conduct of the law enforcement agent was likely to induce a normally law-abiding person, other than one who is ready and willing to commit the offense; for purposes of this test, it is presumed that a law-abiding person would normally resist the temptation to commit a crime that is presented by the simple opportunity to act unlawfully.”

Using both tests, the Court finds that the police operatives conducted a valid entrapment operation.

For the subjective test, the testimonies offered by the prosecution clearly showed that Rodriguez was predisposed to commit the offense even before PO3 Gambi informed him of the presence of “Kyle Edwards.” AAA263603’s testimony that he performed at least 20 nude shows, under the instruction of Rodriguez, readily shows that Rodriguez had a history of engaging in human trafficking and exploiting minors.

Rodriguez’s predisposition to commit the crime is further bolstered by the conversations of PO3 Gambi and Rodriguez even before 13 February 2014. It must be stressed that Rodriguez himself offered the nude shows to PO3 Gambi involving other minors.

Undeniably, the criminal intent originated from Rodriguez himself. The idea and resolve to commit the crime came from him.

For the objective test, PO3 Gambi’s testimony sufficiently establishes that he neither induced nor persuaded Rodriguez to bring or offer AAA263603 to his “foreigner friend.” At most, he only informed Rodriguez that his “foreigner friend” would be staying at the Waterfront Hotel.

Undeniably, the criminal intent originated from Rodriguez himself. The idea and resolve to commit the crime came from him. There was no illicit inducement on the part of the police for Rodriguez to commit the crime. Verily, the incident on February 13, 2014, was an entrapment operation, not an instigation. It is settled that entrapment operations have been sanctioned as a means of arresting offenders who traffic persons. Thus, Rodriguez was validly arrested, rendering the search and seizure incidental to his arrest valid.

The quoted portion of the decision is from People of the Philippines v. Eul Vincent O. Rodriguez (G.R. No. 263603, 9 October 2023).