CRIMINAL LAW: Absolutory Causes, Instigation, and Entrapment
I. Overview of Absolutory Causes
Absolutory Causes refer to circumstances that exempt an accused from criminal liability even though the act committed is technically a crime. These causes are based on principles of justice, policy, and morality. They negate liability because the act, while punishable in general, lacks the necessary culpability or criminal intent.
II. Legal Basis
Absolutory causes are not expressly provided in a single article of the Revised Penal Code (RPC). Instead, they are derived from:
- Specific provisions in the RPC, such as Articles 6, 20, and 247.
- Case law, which identifies situations where absolution is justified.
- Legal principles of criminal liability, which require intent or voluntariness.
III. Examples of Absolutory Causes
Spontaneous Desistance (Article 6, RPC)
In attempted or frustrated crimes, if the offender voluntarily desists from carrying out the offense, no liability arises. This shows the absence of criminal intent.- Example: A pickpocket puts his hand in someone’s pocket but withdraws it upon realizing it is immoral.
Accessory After the Fact: Exemption in Certain Relationships (Article 20, RPC)
Accessories are exempt from criminal liability if related to the principal offender as:- Spouse or common-law partner,
- Ascendant, descendant, legitimate, natural, or adopted sibling,
- Relatives by affinity within the same degree.
Death Caused in the Heat of Passion (Article 247, RPC)
A spouse, parent, or ascendant who kills their spouse or daughter in the act of sexual intercourse with another person is exempt from liability.Evasion of Service of Sentence on Account of Voluntary Surrender
Voluntary surrender by the offender to authorities may mitigate or absolve liability under Article 13.Incomplete Self-Defense, Defense of Relatives, or Defense of Strangers
When circumstances of justification exist but some requirements are lacking, the offender may be absolved or given reduced liability.
IV. Entrapment vs. Instigation
Understanding the distinction between entrapment and instigation is critical, as one is lawful while the other nullifies liability.
Entrapment
- Definition: A lawful method where law enforcement facilitates the commission of a crime to catch the offender in flagrante delicto.
- Purpose: To gather evidence and apprehend criminals.
- Legality: Entrapment does not absolve the accused of liability because the intent to commit the crime originates from the offender.
- Example: A police officer pretends to be a buyer of illegal drugs. The seller is apprehended after the transaction.
Instigation
- Definition: A prohibited act where law enforcement or agents induce or coerce a person into committing a crime they would not have otherwise committed.
- Purpose: Instigation creates the crime rather than detecting it.
- Effect: The accused is absolved because the criminal intent originated from the instigator.
- Example: A police officer persuades a law-abiding person to sell drugs under threat or deceit.
Key Distinction:
- Entrapment: Offender has prior intent to commit the crime. Law enforcement merely provides an opportunity.
- Instigation: Offender is incited to commit a crime they had no intent to commit. Liability does not attach due to lack of genuine intent.
V. Case Doctrines on Instigation and Entrapment
People v. Lua (G.R. No. 128013)
- The Supreme Court emphasized that instigation vitiates criminal liability. If the idea and resolve to commit the crime originate from law enforcement, the accused cannot be held liable.
People v. Doria (G.R. No. 125299)
- Entrapment is a legitimate means of apprehending drug offenders. The act of offering drugs during a buy-bust operation is sufficient evidence of intent.
People v. Batis (G.R. No. 114698)
- Instigation occurs when law enforcement implants a criminal idea. This case clarified that instigation, unlike entrapment, is a valid defense.
VI. Application in Practice
Defense of Instigation:
- To prove instigation, the defense must demonstrate:
- Lack of predisposition to commit the crime.
- That law enforcement actively persuaded or coerced the accused.
- To prove instigation, the defense must demonstrate:
Judicial Treatment of Entrapment:
- Courts assess the legality of the operation and ensure no overreach occurred. Evidence such as pre-operation reports and coordination with anti-drug agencies is crucial.
Exemptions in Absolutory Causes:
- The burden of proof lies with the accused to demonstrate that their actions fall under an absolutory cause.
VII. Policy Implications
Balance Between Public Safety and Individual Rights:
- Entrapment is necessary to combat crimes such as drug trafficking but must not lead to abuse of authority.
- Instigation undermines the integrity of law enforcement and the criminal justice system.
Judicial Safeguards:
- Courts are vigilant against misuse of entrapment operations and ensure instigation is not disguised as lawful entrapment.
Legislative Reforms:
- Lawmakers may explore codifying additional absolutory causes or refining the guidelines for entrapment operations.
VIII. Conclusion
Understanding absolutory causes, instigation, and entrapment is vital in criminal law to ensure fair administration of justice. Absolutory causes recognize human frailty and provide exemptions based on morality and equity, while the clear distinction between entrapment and instigation prevents abuse in law enforcement. Practitioners and courts must be vigilant in identifying and applying these principles to maintain balance and uphold the rule of law.