G.R. No. 178060 Case Digest

G.R. No. 178060, February 23, 2011 

People of the Philippines, appellee,

vs Villarama, Jr., and Romeo Dansico y Monay, appellants.

Ponente: Brion

Facts:

This is a petition for review the decision of Court of Appeals in affirming the decision of RTC Camarines Sur finding Dansico and Enriquez guilty beyond reasonable doubt for sale of Marijuana.

Information filed: On September 7, 1998 around 4:30pm in Camarines Sur Dansico and Enriquez are accused of conspiring, confederating and helping one another to sell and deliver a pack of marijuana weighing 900 grams.

With their counsel, they pleaded not guilty of charge. In the pre-trial, the appellants admitted their identities and the existence of the booking sheet and the arrest report against them. Trial on the merits thereafter ensued.

Prosecution Case: The prosecution established its case by presenting the testimonies of three (3) witnesses and the supporting documentary evidence. The prosecution’s account showed that the appellants were caught and arrested for selling marijuana during a buy-bust operation.

Defense Case: The defense denied the charges and countered that the appellants were victims of frame-up and police extortion. The defense presented six (6) witnesses(including the two appellants) and the documentary evidence. Appellant Dansico admitted that the marijuana presented in court was the same marijuana shown to him at the Tigaon Police Station. According to the defense, appellant Dansico had a farm where appellant Cuadra worked. In the afternoon of September 7, 1998, appellant Cuadra was on his way back to the farm when he was accosted by P/Insp. Vargas who poked a gun at him. Appellant Cuadra attempted to flee and even shouted for help but P/Insp. Vargas struck him on the head with his gun.

RTC found the appellants guilty of illegal sale of marijuana and sentenced them to suffer the penalty of reclusion perpetua with the corresponding accessory penalties.

The CA, on appeal, affirmed the RTC decision. The CA sustained the convictions of the appellants, finding the prosecution’s version more credible in the absence of any improper motive established against the prosecution witnesses. The CA also relied on the presumption of regularity that attended the conduct of the buy-bust operation which led to the arrest of the appellants.

Issues: (1) The elements of the crime – the sale and delivery of the marijuana, and the knowledge of the sale of marijuana – were not established in evidence.  (2) The evidence failed to establish the existence of the buy-bust operation; for the first time on appeal, the appellants argue that they were instigated into selling marijuana.

Ruling: We find no reversible error committed by the RTC and the CA in appreciating the presented evidence and, therefore, deny the petition for lack of merit.

(a) 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) 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. We consider, too, the testimonies of Paz and P/Insp. Vargas to be in accord with the physical evidence showing in detail the process undertaken by P/Insp. Vargas and the police officers immediately after the appellants’ arrest and the confiscation of the marijuana.  We also take into account that no improper motive was ever successfully established showing why the buy-bust team would falsely accuse the appellants.

(c) 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. Besides, the failure of the appellants to file appropriate criminal and administrative cases against the concerned police officers in light of their allegations highly indicates that the appellants’ claims are mere concocted afterthoughts.

(d) The records show that the defenses of denial, frame-up, and police extortion were even contradicted by the appellants’ own conduct during the appeal to the CA. By raising instigation as a defense, the appellants effectively admitted that they sold marijuana; they only now question the circumstances of the sale, with the claim that they were led into it by the police.

(e) The evidence on record belies that the appellants were instigated to sell marijuana. 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.