G.R. No. 179150 - PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, VS. DELIA BAYANI Y BOTANES, ACCUSED-.D E C I S I O N - Supreme Court E-Library

Ruling

ACCORDINGLY , judgment is hereby rendered finding the accused GUILTY beyond reasonable doubt for (sic) violation of Section 5, Article II, R.A. 9165 for drug pushing of six point forty one (6.41) grams of crystalline substance containing Methylamphetamine hydrochloride and is hereby sentenced to suffer LIFE IMPRISONMENT and to pay a fine of Five Hundred Thousand Pesos. The drug involved in this case is hereby ordered transmitted to the Philippine Drug Enforcement Agency (PDEA) through the Dangerous Drugs Board for proper disposition. [16] The appellant filed an appeal before the Court of Appeals docketed as CA-G.R. CR-H.C. No. 00310. 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. In affirming the RTC Decision, the appellate court declared that the police officers did not induce the appellant to sell the prohibited drugs. By pointing out the fact that appellant had the shabu in her possession, ready for selling, before the police officer approached her, it adjudged that the appellant's criminal resolve was evident; no inducement to sell the prohibited drugs had led to the commission of the offense. It maintained that the fact that the police officers did not conduct a prior surveillance does not affect the validity of an entrapment operation. It further held that presentation by the prosecution of the informant and other police officers who had witnessed the buy-bust operations was not required to prove the appellant's guilt, where their testimonies would merely repeat the testimony of the poseur-buyer. [17] In the Decision dated 20 December 2005, the fallo reads: WHEREFORE , the foregoing considered, the appeal is hereby DISMISSED and the assailed Decision AFFIRMED in toto . Without pronouncement as to costs. [18] Hence, the present petition in which the appellant reiterates the sole assignment of error, to wit: THE TRIAL COURT GRAVELY ERRED IN CONVICTING THE ACCUSED-APPELLANT OF THE CRIME CHARGED DESPITE THE FACT THAT THE POLICE INSTIGATED THE ALLEGED BUY-BUST TRANSACTION. This petition must fail, since the argument raised by appellant is specious. Appellant argues that PO3 Bernardo's act of approaching the appellant to buy shabu during a buy-bust operation amounted to instigation. Such contention lacks basis and is contrary to jurisprudence. 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. [19] 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 enforceme