Case Digest: ROBERTO CHANG et al. v . PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES 496 SCRA 321 (2006)

ROBERTO CHANG et al. v . PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES 496 SCRA 321 (2006)

In entrapment, the mens rea originates from the mind of the criminal; the idea and the resolve to commit the crime come from him. Roberto Chang (Chang) was the Municipal Treasurer of Makati, while Pacifico San Mateo (San Mateo) was the Chief of the Operations of the Makati Treasurer‘s Office. Edgar Leoncito Feraren (Feraren), on the other hand, was a driver-clerk at the same office. They work hand in hand to collect from Group Developers Incorporated (GDI), through its employee Mario Magat, an amount of P 125, 000. In exchange for the said sum, they issue to the GDI a Certificate of Examination stating that the company had no tax liability for a particular period. The GDI reported the said incident to National Bureau of Investigation (NBI) as part of an entrapment operation against the said individuals. The Sandiganbayan convicted Chang and San Mateo while Feraren was acquitted. Chang and Mateo maintain that the alleged ―entrapment operation‖ by the authorities was actually an instigation; which is an absolutory cause under criminal law, and therefore not punishable.

ISSUE:

Whether or not the incident can be counted as instigation and not entrapment operation.

HELD:

There is entrapment when law officers employ ruses and schemes to ensure the apprehension of the criminal while in the actual commission of the crime. There is instigation when the accused is induced to commit the crime. The difference in the nature of the two lies in the origin of the criminal intent. In entrapment, the mens rea originates from the mind of the criminal. The idea and the resolve to commit the crime comes from him. In instigation, the law officer conceives the commission of the crime and suggests to the accused who adopts the idea and carries it into execution. From the evidence for the prosecution, it was clearly established that the criminal intent originated from the minds of Chang et al. Even before the June 19, 1991 meeting took place, Chang et al. already made known to Magat that GDI only had two options to prevent the closure of the company, either to pay the assessed amount of P494,601.11 to the Municipality, or pay the amount of P125,000 to them.