G.R. No. 179150. June 17, 2008. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES vs. DELIA BAYANI y BOTANES CHICO-NAZARIO, J.
Facts:
On 7 March 2003, an
Information was filed before the RTC charging appellant with Violation of
Section 5 of Republic Act No. 9165.
On 9 September 2003, appellant, with the
assistance of counsel , was arraigned and she pleaded "Not
guilty." Thereafter, a pre-trial conference was held, and trial ensued
accordingly
PO3 Bernardo and the informant went in
front of the appellant’s house. while the other police officers positioned
themselves within viewing distance. The appellant was standing in front of her
house. As they approached her, the informant introduced Bernardo to her as a
buyer. Witness testified that he told appellant that he wanted to buy ten
thousand pesos (P10,000.00) worth of shabu, and the appellant
nodded her head. Thereafter, she handed him two sachets containing a
crystalline substance which was suspected to be shabu. Witness, in
turn, gave the boodle money, after which he grabbed the appellant’s right hand,
apprehended her, and identified himself as a police officer.
After the apprehension of the appellant, the
team brought her before the Police Station investigator, while the drugs and
the buy-bust money were turned over to the crime laboratory. Appellant was
apprised of her constitutional rights.
During his testimony, PO3 Bernardo identified
the accused, the boodle money with his initials "VB," as well as two
(2) sachets of crystalline substance (also with the same initials) which was
positive of methylamphetamine hydrochloride after laboratory examination.
RTC decreed that the accused was guilty
without reasonable doubt since the fact of the illegal sale of a dangerous
drug, methylamphetamine hydrochloride, was sufficiently and indisputably
established by the prosecution. PO3 Bernardo, as the poseur-buyer, positively
identified the appellant as the person who handed him two sachets containing
6.41 grams of shabu in exchange for P10,000.00. The
boodle money was marked as Exhibit "B" for the prosecution. The
two sachets of shabu were likewise presented and marked in
court as Exhibits "G" and "H." The RTC gave full credence
to PO3 Bernardo’s testimony, given the presumption of regularity in the
performance of his functions as a police officer, especially since no ill motive
was attributed to him for the appellant’s apprehension.
appellant filed an appeal before the Court of
Appeals Raising only one assignment of error, appellant faulted the RTC’s
finding of guilt for being based on a buy-bust transaction instigated by the
arresting officers. CA Affirmed the decision of RTC.
Issue: Whether or not the buy-bust transaction
is instigation not an entrapment.
Ruling:
Instigation is the means by which
the accused is lured into the commission of the offense charged in order to
prosecute him. On the other hand, entrapment is the employment of such ways and
means for the purpose of trapping or capturing a lawbreaker. Thus, in
instigation, officers of the law or their agents incite, induce, instigate or
lure an accused into committing an offense which he or she would otherwise not
commit and has no intention of committing. But in entrapment, the criminal
intent or design to commit the offense charged originates in the mind of the
accused, and law enforcement officials merely facilitate the apprehension of
the criminal by employing ruses and schemes; thus, the accused cannot justify
his or her conduct. In instigation, where law enforcers act as co-principals,
the accused will have to be acquitted. But entrapment cannot bar prosecution
and conviction. As has been said, instigation is a "trap for the unwary
innocent," while entrapment is a "trap for the unwary criminal."
As a general rule, a buy-bust
operation, considered as a form of entrapment, is a valid means of arresting
violators of Republic Act No. 9165. It is an effective way of apprehending law
offenders in the act of committing a crime. In a buy-bust operation, the idea
to commit a crime originates from the offender, without anybody inducing or
prodding him to commit the offense.
A police officer’s act of
soliciting drugs from the accused during a buy-bust operation, or what is known
as a "decoy solicitation," is not prohibited by law and does not
render invalid the buy-bust operations. The sale of contraband is a kind of
offense habitually committed, and the solicitation simply furnishes evidence of
the criminal’s course of conduct. In People v. Sta. Maria, the Court
clarified that a "decoy solicitation" is not tantamount to inducement
or instigation:
Conversely, the law deplores instigation or
inducement, which occurs when the police or its agent devises the idea of
committing the crime and lures the accused into executing the offense.
Instigation absolves the accused of any guilt, given the spontaneous moral
revulsion from using the powers of government to beguile innocent but ductile
persons into lapses that they might otherwise resist.
0 Comments