People v Dansico (Criminal Procedure)

People v Dansico 

G.R. No. 178060 

February 23, 2011  

FACTS:  

"That sometime on September 7, 1998 at about 4:30 o'clock  [sic] in the afternoon, at Brgy. May-  

Anao, Tigaon, Camarines Sur, Philippines and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the above-named accused ROMEO DANSICO y MONAY a.k.a. “Lamyak” and AUGUSTO CUADRA y ENRIQUEZ conspiring, confederating and helping one another to attain a common purpose did then and there willfully, unlawfully and feloniously without authority of law sell, deliver one (1) pc. Marijuana bricks wrapped in newspaper with approximate size of 1 ½ x 8 x 10 inches weighing approximately NINE HUNDRED (900) grams for and in consideration of FIVE THOUSAND PESOS (P5,000.00) to the prejudice of the Government."  

ISSUE:  

Are the accused guilty of the crime?  

Sub-issues:  

a. Were the two (2) elements of the crime – the sale and delivery of the marijuana, and the knowledge of the sale of marijuana – properly established in evidence?  

b. Was the evidence able to establish the existence of the buy-bust operation?  

c. Are the defenses of denial and frame-up, and the claim of police extortion raised by the appellants valid? should they be considered?  

d. Were the accused instigated to sell marijuana?  

HELD:  

They are guilty.  

a. YES - the two elements were properly established in evidence.  

To convict an accused of illegal sale of marijuana, the prosecution must establish these essential elements: (1) the identity of the buyer and the seller, the object of the sale, and the consideration; and (2) the delivery of the thing sold and the payment.  

The fact that an actual buy-bust operation took place involving the appellants is supported not only by the testimonies of Paz  (as the poseur-buyer) and P/Insp. Vargas, but also by the presented documentary evidence consisting of (a) the photocopy of the serial numbers of the marked money used in the buy-bust operation, (b) the Tigaon Police Station police blotter showing the arrest of the appellants on September 7, 1998 and the cause of their arrest by the group of P/Insp. Vargas, (c) the booking sheet and arrest report against the appellants prepared by P/Insp. Vargas, and (d) the Joint Affidavit of Arrest executed by P/Insp. Vargas and Eduardo Buenavente, another civilian volunteer.  

b. YES.  

The testimonies of Paz and P/Insp. Vargas on the buy-bust operation and the identities of the appellants as the sellers of the marijuana were positive and straightforward; they were consistent with one another with respect to the events that transpired before, during, and after the buy-bust operation that led to the appellants' arrest.  

c. NO  

the defenses of denial, frame-up, and police extortion only become weighty when inconsistencies and improbabilities cast doubt on the credibility of the prosecution evidence. We do not see these inconsistencies and improbabilities in the presented evidence. 

d. NO.  

Instigation means luring the accused into a crime that he, otherwise, had no intention to commit, in order to prosecute him. On the other hand, entrapment is the employment of ways and means in order to trap or capture a lawbreaker.  

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. 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.  

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.  

NOTES: 

(1) In 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 accused's 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.