Header Ads Widget

People vs Bayani



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.


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.

In the present case, PO3 Bernardo testified that appellant stood in front of her house and was in possession of drugs readily available for anyone who would buy them. PO3 Bernardo did not even have to employ any act of instigation or inducement, 

Post a Comment