Instigation vs.

Entrapment

In instigation, the instigator practically induces the will-be accused into the commission of the offense and
himself becomes a co-principal, in entrapment ways and means are resorted to for the purpose of trapping
and capturing the law breaker in the execution of his criminal plan. People vs Galicia.
In entrapment the crime had already been committed while in instigation the crime was not yet and would
not have been committed were it not for the instigation of the peace officer. People vs. Cahilig.
Entrapment is the employment of such ways and means for the purpose of trapping or capturing a
lawbreaker.
Oftentimes it is the only effective way of apprehending a criminal in the act of the commission of the
offense. In entrapment the Idea to commit the crime originated from the accused. Nobody induces or prods
him into committing the offense. A criminal is caught committing the act by ways and means devised by
peace officers.

It must be distinguished from inducement or instigation wherein the criminal intent originates in the
mind of the instigator and the accused is lured into the commission of the offense charged in order to
prosecute him. The instigator practically induces the would-be accused into the Commission of the offense
and himself becomes a co-principal. In entrapment ways and means are resorted to for the purpose of
capturing the lawbreaker in flagrante delicto. In entrapment, the crime had already been committed while
in instigation, it was not and could not have been committed were it not for the instigation by the peace
officer.
Entrapment has proven to be an effective means of apprehending drug peddlers as in this case.
http://wayseerphil.blogspot.com/2015/10/instigation-vs-entrapment.html
Difference between entrapment and instigation:
In entrapment, ways and means are resorted to for the purpose of trapping and capturing lawbreakers in
the execution of their criminal plan. In instigation on the other hand, instigators practically induce the
would-be defendant into the commission of the offense and become co-principals themselves.
(Ty vs. People, G.R. No. 149275, 27 September 2004, 439 SCRA 220)
http://lawphil.blogspot.com/2015/10/entrapment-v-instigation.html
Instigation means luring the accused into a crime that he, otherwise, had no intention to commit, in order
to prosecute him.[26] On the other hand, entrapment is the employment of ways and means in order to
trap or capture a lawbreaker.[27] 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.[28] 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.[29] 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.[30]
To determine whether there is instigation or entrapment, we held in People v. Doria[31]that the conduct of
the apprehending officers and the predisposition of the accused to commit the crime must be examined:

[I]n buy-bust operations demands that the details of the purported transaction must be clearly and
adequately shown. This must start from the initial contact between the poseur-buyer and the pusher, the
offer to purchase, the promise or payment of the consideration until the consummation of the sale by the
delivery of the illegal drug subject of the sale. The manner by which the initial contact was made, whether
or not through an informant, the offer to purchase the drug, the payment of the buy-bust money, and the
delivery of the illegal drug, whether to the informant alone or the police officer, must be the subject of
strict scrutiny by courts to insure that law-abiding citizens are not unlawfully induced to commit an
offense. Criminals must be caught but not at all cost. At the same time, however, examining the conduct of
the police should not disable courts into ignoring the accuseds predisposition to commit the crime. If there
is overwhelming evidence of habitual delinquency, recidivism or plain criminal proclivity, then this must
also be considered. Courts should look at all factors to determine the predisposition of an accused to
commit an offense in so far as they are relevant to determine the validity of the defense of inducement.
[32]
http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2011/february2011/178060.htm

https://bataspinoy.wordpress.com/2012/02/19/instigation-and-entrapment-are-distinguished-anddetermined/