7/31/2019 People vs. Doria Jan 22, 1999

1/2

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, vs. FLORENCIO DORIA y BOLADO, and

VIOLETA GADDAO y CATAMA @ "NENETH," accused-appellants.

Two civilian informants informed the PNP Narcom that one Jun was engaged in illegal drugactivities and the Narcom agents decided to entrap and arrenst Jun in a buy-bust operation.

On the day of entrapment, PO3 Manlangit handed Jun the marked bills and Jun instructed

PO3 Manlangit to wait for him while he got the marijuana from his associate.

When they met up, Jun gave PO3 something wrapped in plastic upon which PO3 arrested

Jun. They frisked Jun but did not find the marked bills on him. Jun revealed that he left the

money at the house of his associate named neneth

They went to Neneths house. PO3 Manlangit noticed a carton box under the dinin table and

noticed something wrapped in plastic inside the box.

Suspicious, PO3 entered the house and took hold of the box and found that it ha 10 bricks ofwhat appeared to be dried marijuana leaves.

Simultaneously, SPO1 Badua recovered the marked bills from Neneth. The policemen arrested

Neneth and took both her and Jun, together with the coz, its contents and the marked bill and

turned them over to the investigator at headquarters,

Jun was then learned to be Florencio Doria while Neneth is Violata Gaddao.

They were both convicted feloniously selling, administering and giving away to another 11plastic bags of suspected marijuana fruiting tops, in violation of R.A 6425, as amended by RA

7659

Issue: WON Violeta Gaddao is liable

Entrapment is recognized as a valid defense that can be raised by an accused & partakes the

nature of a confession & avoidance.

American federal courts and state courts usually use the subjective or origin of intent test

laid down in Sorrells v. U.S. to determine whether entrapment actually occurred. The focus of

the inquiry is on the accusers predisposition to commit the offense is charged, his state of mindand inclination before his initial exposure to government agents.

Another test is the objective test where the test of entrapment is whether the conduct of the lawenforcement agents was likely to induce a normally law-abiding person, other than one who is

ready and willing, to commit the offense.

7/31/2019 People vs. Doria Jan 22, 1999

2/2

The objective test in buy-bust operations demands that the details of the purported transaction

must be clearly & adequately shown. Courts should look at all factors to determine thepredisposition of an accused to commit an offense in so far as they are relevant to determine the

validty of the defense of inducement.

In the case at bar, Gaddao was not caught red-handed during the buy-bust operation to giveground for her arrest uner Sec. 5a of Rule 113. She was not committing any crime. Contrary to

the finding of the TC, there was no occasion at all for Gaddao to flee from the policement to

justify her arrest in hot pursuit

Neither could her arrest ne justified under second instance of personal knowledge in Rule 113as this must be based upon probable cause which means an actual belief or reasonable grounds

for suspicion. Gaddao was arrested solely on the basis of the alleged indentification made by her

co-accused. PO3 Manlangt, however, declared in his direct examination that appellant Doria

named his co-accused in response to his query as to where the marked money was. Doria did notpoint to Gaddao as his associate in the drug business, but as the person with whom he lfet the

marked bills. This identification does not necessarily lead to the conclusion that Gaddaoconspired with Doria in pushing drugs, If there is no showing that the person who effected thewarrantless arrest had, in his own right, knowledge of the acts implicating the person arrested to

the perpetration of a criminal offense, the arrest is legally objectionable.

Furthermore, the fact that the box containing about 6 kilos of marijuana was found in Gaddaoshouse does not justify a finding that she herself is guilty of the crime charged.

The prosecution thus had failed to prove that Gaddao conspired with Doria in the sale of the said

drug. Thus, Gaddao is acquitted