ENTRAPMENT AND INSTIGATION instrument of the crime and to arrest the

offenders before he obtained the profits in

People vs. Lua Chu and Uy Se Tieng mind.
• He obtained the profits in mind even through
Background of Case: afterwards does take the necessary steps seize
the instrument of the crime and to arrest the
On November 1929, Uy Se Tieng, was the consignee of the Shipments of Opium offenders.
coming from Hongkong, who represented agents of the real Owners of Shipments of 2. Even though Juan Samson smoothed the way for the
Opium containing 3,252 tins. He collaborated with Samson and Natividad of the introduction of the prohibited drugs, the following
Customs by paying them an amount of P6,000 for the opium to be released safely should be noted that held Samson not guilty for the
from Customs. crime:
• The accused have already planned and actually
On December 1929, upon arrival of the Shipment of Opium in the ports of Cebu, Uy ordered the opium without the consent or
Se Tieng informed Samson that the former consult the real owners on how to participation of Juan Samson.
proceed the payment of P6,000 and will come over to Samson house on December • Did not help the accused to successfully
17, 1929 to inform the decision of the owners. implement there plan rather, Samson assured
the seizure of the imported drug and the arrest
On the same day Samson informed the Constabulary represented by Captain of the smugglers.
Buencosejo and the Provincial Fiscal requesting a stenographer to take down the Trial judge refusal of Not one of the means prescribed in section 342 of the
conversation between Samson and Uy Se Teung. exclusion of Juan Code of Civil Procedures
Samson in the witness
On the night of December 17, 1929, Captain Buencosejo and a stenographer named stand eventhough he
Jumapao from a law firm and hid themselves behind the curtains in the house of was already dismissed
Samson to witness the conversation between Samson, Uy Se Teung and Lua Chu. from the Customs secret
service
Captain Buencosejo and Jumapao noted the following important facts: In accepting the 1. The transcript contains certain admissions made by
1. Uy Se Teung informed Samson that Lua Chu was one of the owners of the transcript taken down the defendants.
Opium. by Jumapao as the true 2. Stenographer attested that it was faithfully taken
2. Lua Chu informed Samson that aside from him, there were co-owners and correct conversation down.
named Tan and another located in Amoy. between Juan Samson 3. Corroborated by statement of Juan Statement in the
3. Lua Chu promised to pay the P6,000 upon delivery of the opium from the and Uy Se Tieng court.
warehouse of Uy Se Tieng.
4. A Customs Collector had a conversation before when Samson was on
Concluding Remarks:
vacation in Europe, with Lua Chu and agreed on the business of shipping
the Opium.
Entrapment
1. The practice of entrapping persons into crime for the purpose of instituting
The following morning Uy Se Tieng and companion, Uy Ay presented papers to
criminal prosecutions
Samson and Captain Buencosejo showed up and caught them in the act and
2. It is a scheme or technique ensuring the apprehension of the criminals by
arrested the two Chinese. The Constabulary then arrested Lua Chu and confiscated
being in the actual crime scene.
P50,000 worth of Opium (3,252 tins).
3. The law officers shall not be guilty to the crime if he have done the
following:
Facts of Case:
a. He does not induces a person to commit a crime for personal gain
or is not involved in the planning of the crime.
An Appeal was made by Uy Se Tieng and Lua Chu and made ten assignments of
b. Does take the necessary steps to seize the instrument of the
errors made by the trial court in its judgment.
crime and to arrest the offenders before he obtained the profits in
mind.
Appelant’s Point of Held
Defense Instigation
Juan Samson induced 1. A public official shall be involved in the crime if: This is the involvement of a law officer in the crime itself in the following
the defendants to • He induces a person to commit a crime for manners:
import the opium. personal gain a. He induces a person to commit a crime for personal gain
• Does not take the necessary steps to seize the
 b. Does not take the necessary steps to seize the instrument of the ♦ Conspirators and accomplices have one thing in common: they know and agree
crime and to arrest the offenders before he obtained the profits in with the criminal design. Conspirators, however, know the criminal intention
mind. because they themselves have decided upon such course of action. Accomplices
c. He obtained the profits in mind even through afterwards does take come to know about it after the principals have reached the decision, and only
the necessary steps seize the instrument of the crime and to then do they agree to cooperate in its execution. Conspirators decide that a
arrest the offenders. crime should be committed; accomplices merely concur in it. Accomplices do
not decide whether the crime should be committed; they merely assent to the
PEOPLE VS. DE VERA plan and cooperate in its accomplishment. Conspirators are the authors of a
crime; accomplices are merely their instruments who perform acts not essential
Facts: to the perpetration of the offense.

♦ On June 8, 1992 12:00am Kenneth Florendo (Kenneth) together with People vs. Yanson-Dumancas
Edwin De Vera (Edwin), Roderick Garcia (Deo) and Elmer Castro (Elmer)
drove to Filivenvest QC to dropped by the house of Frederick Capulong Facts:
(Frederick).
♦ Kenneth and Elmer went to see Frederick while Deo and Edwin was left in ♦ On February 20, 1992, Jeanette Yanson Dumancas was swindled in a fake gold
the car. bar transaction losing P352,000 to Danilo Lumangyao and Rufino Gargar, Jr.
♦ Later Kenneth have a heated conversion with Frederick and later Kenneth ♦ On August 5, 1992 10:30 AM Mario Lamis, Dominador Geroche, Rolando
shot Frederick using a .32 cal. Fernandez, Jaime Gargallano, Edwin Divinagracia, Teody Delgado, Moises
♦ Bernardino Cacao, a resident of Denver Loop Street in Filinvest Quezon was Grandeza were planning to abduct Lumangyao and Gargar Jr. because they
one of the witness in the murder of Frederick Capulong by Kenneth swindled the Dumancas family. Col Nicolas Torres was also informed of the plan
Florendo, Roderick Garcia, Edwin De Vera and Elmer Castro. of the group.
♦ The RTC found Edwin De Vera and Roderick Garcia guilty beyond ♦ On August 6, 1992, Jeannette investigated the two abducted and told the group
reasonable doubt of murder and sentencing them to reclusion perpetua. of Geroche to take care of the two.
♦ On August 7, 1992, Gargallano shot Gargar and while Geroche shot
Issues: Lumangyao. Thereafter the two bodies were buried by Pecha and Hilado.
♦ WON Edwin de Vera can be considered as an accomplice or as a conspirator ♦ The RTC found the following guilty of:
in the crime committed by Florendo and Castro? Accomplice o Principals by Induction
Jeanette Yanson Dumancas
Ratio: o Principals by Induction and by Direct Participation and/or
♦ Revised penal Code provides that a conspiracy exists when "two or more Indispensable Cooperation
Police Col. Nicolas M. Torres
persons come to an agreement concerning the commission of a felony and
o Principals by Participation
decide to commit it." To prove conspiracy, the prosecution must establish the
following three requisites: "(1) that two or more persons came to an Police Inspector Adonis C. Abeto
agreement, (2) that the agreement concerned the commission of a crime, and Police Officer Mario Lamis Y Fernandez, Dominador
(3) that the execution of the felony [was] decided upon."Except in the case of Geroche Y Mahusay, Jaime Gargallano, Rolando R.
the mastermind of a crime, it must also be shown that the accused performed Fernandez, Edwin Divinagracia, Teody Delgado
an overt act in furtherance of the conspiracy. The Court has held that in most o Principals by Participation
instances, direct proof of a previous agreement need not be established, for Cesar Pecha
conspiracy may be deduced from the acts of the accused pointing to a joint Edgar Hilado
purpose, concerted action and community of interest
♦ Revised Penal Code defines accomplices as "those persons who, not being Issues:
included in Article 17, cooperate in the execution of the offense by previous or
simultaneous acts." The Court has held that an accomplice is "one who knows ♦ WON Charles Dumancas and Jeannette Yanson Dumancas can be
the criminal design of the principal and cooperates knowingly or intentionally considered principals by induction? No.
therewith by an act which, even if not rendered, the crime would be committed ♦ WON Police Inspector Adonis Abeto can be considered principals by
just the same.”To hold a person liable as an accomplice, two elements must be participation? No
present: (1) the "community" of criminal design; that is, knowing the criminal ♦ WON Police Col Nicolas M. Torres can be considered principals by induction?
design of the principal by direct participation, he concurs with the latter in his No
purpose;" and (2) the performance of previous or simultaneous acts that are
not indispensable to the commission of the crime Ratio:
♦ Jeanette Yanson Dumancas is not guilty as principals by induction because
there are not other evidence that can prove the she’s guilty beyond
reasonable doubt.
Article 17, Revised Penal Code, provides:
Article 17. Principals – The following are considered principals:
1. Those who take a direct part in the execution of the acts.
2. Those who directly force or induce other to commit it;
3. Those who cooperate in the commission of the offense by another act
without which it would not have been accomplished.
There are 2 ways of directly forcing another to commit a crime, namely:
(1) by using irresistible force or (2) by causing uncontrollable fear.
Likewise there are two ways of inducing another to commit a crime,
namely: (1) by giving a price or offering reward or promise and (2) by
using works of command. All of the factors are not admissible to Jeanette.
The only evidence that may be considered is the word “to take care of the
two” which may constitute words of command. Evidenced should the
Jeanette meant the “to take care of the two” is to allow the law to its
course upon cross examination of Moises Grandeza. This also raises some
doubt of what the interpretation of the phrase. Thus it cannot be
concluded since it cannot be concluded that there is command to kill the
victims beyond reasonable by the vague phase itself.
♦ Police Inspector Adonis Abeto participation was to serve a search warrant
on Helen Tortocio’s residence (person which Gargar and Lumangyao told
the police officers where the money might have gone) and that
subsequently interrogated Gargar and Lumangyao.
♦ Police Col Nicolas M. Torres should have been criminally liable but since his
death the criminal liability is extinguished but the civil liability still subsists.
1. Death of the accused pending appeal of his conviction extinguishes his
criminal liability as well as the civil liability based solely thereon. As
opined by Justice Regalado, in this regard, "the death of the accused
prior to final judgment terminates his criminal liability and only the
civil liability directly arising from and based solely on the offense
committed, i.e., civil liability ex delicto in senso strictiore."
2. Corollarily, the claim for civil liability survives notwithstanding the
death of accused, if the same may also be predicated on a source of
obligation other than delict. Article 1157 of the Civil Code enumerates
these other sources of obligation from which the civil liability may arise
as a result of the same act or omission:
a. Law
b. Contracts
c. Quasi-contracts
d. Quasi-delicts
3. Where the civil liability survives, as explained in Number 2 above, an
action for recovery therefor may be pursued but only by way of filing a
separate civil action and subject to Section 1, Rule 111 of the 1985
Rules on Criminal Procedure as amended. This separate civil action
may be enforced either against the executor/administrator of the
estate of the accused, depending on the source of obligation upon
which the same is based as explained above.
4. Finally, the private offended party need not fear a forfeiture of his right
to file a separate civil action by prescription, in cases where during the
prosecution of the criminal action and prior to its extinction, the
private-offended party instituted together therewith the civil action. In
such case, the statute of limitations on the civil liability is deemed
interrupted during the pendency of the criminal case, conformably with
provisions of Article 1155 of the Civil Code, that should thereby avoid
any apprehension on possible privation of right by prescription.
United States vs. Indanan
Facts:
♦ Panglima Indanan, accussed is the headman of Parang.
♦ On March 24, 1912, Indanan ordered the killing of Sariol to his men Akiran,
Kalyakan and Suhuri in the Chinese Cemetary asserting that Indanan had an
order to that effect from the governor.
♦ The court of First Instance found Indanan guilty of the crime of murder and
sentencing him to be hanged.
Issues:
♦ WON Indanan is guilty of murder by inducement? Yes
Ratio
Article 13, paragraph 2, of the Penal Code declares those to be principals in a crime
"who directly force or induce others to commit it."
Commenting upon this paragraph, Viada says:
They force another to commit a crime who physically by actual force or grave fear,
for example, with a pistol in hand or by any other threatening means, oblige
another to commit the crime. In our commentary on paragraph 9 of article 8 (page
28), we have already said that he who suffers violence acts without will and against
his will, is no more than an instrument, and therefore is guilty of no wrong. The real
culprits in such case, the only guilty persons, are those who use the violence, those
who force the other to commit the crime.
One is induced directly to commit a crime either by command, or for a
consideration, or by any other similar act which constitutes the real and moving
cause of the crime and which was done for the purpose of inducing such criminal act
and was sufficient for that purpose. We have already seen in our commentary on
paragraph 12 of article 8 that the one who physically commits the crime may escape
criminal responsibility by showing that he acted with due obedience to an order; in
such case the criminal responsibility falls entirely upon the one who orders, that is,
upon him who by his commands has directly induced the other to commit the act.
But in case the obedience of the inferior is not due to the superior and therefore not
necessary, and does not, therefore, exempt him from criminal responsibility as the
physical author of the crime, he who thus, by his command, directly induced him to
the criminal act is considered by the law also as principal in the crime.

The pacto by virtue of which one purchases for a consideration the hand which
commits the crime makes him who gives, promises, or offers the consideration the
principal in the crime by direct inducement, because without such offer or promise
the criminal act would never have been committed. But this does not mean that the
one who actually commits the crime by reason of such promise, remuneration or
reward is exempted from criminal responsibility; on the contrary, we have already
seen in our comments on paragraph 3 of article 10 that such circumstance
constitutes an aggravation of his crime.

We have heretofore said that in addition to the precepto and the pacto there are
similar means by which another may be induced to commit a crime which also make
the one who offers the inducement the principal in the crime by virtue of the
provisions of article 13, paragraph 2. But it must be borne in mind that these acts of
inducement do not consist in simple advice or counsel given before the act is
committed, or in simple words uttered at the time the act was committed. Such
advice and such words constitute undoubtedly an evil act, an inducement
condemned by the moral law; but in order that, under the provisions of the Code,
such act can be considered direct inducement, it is necessary that such advice or
such words have a great dominance and great influence over the person who acts;
it is necessary that they be as direct, as efficacious, as powerful as physical or
moral coercion or as violence itself.