This case has been cited 6 times or more.
|
2013-02-20 |
BERSAMIN, J. |
||||
| Tapere was caught in flagrante delicto committing the illegal sale of shabu during the buy-bust operation. In that operation, Salgado offered to buy from him a definite quantity of shabu for P100.00. Even if, as he claims, he was unaware that Salgado was then working as an undercover agent for the PDEA, he had no justification for accepting the offer of Salgado to buy the shabu. His explanation that he could not have refused Salgado's offer to buy for fear of displeasing the latter was implausible. He did not show how Salgado could have influenced him at all into doing something so blatantly illegal. What is clear to us, therefore, is that the decision to peddle the shabu emanated from his own mind, such that he did not need much prodding from Salgado or anyone else to engage in the sale of the shabu; hence, he was not incited, induced, instigated or lured into committing an offense that he did not have the intention of committing.[26] | |||||
|
2013-02-06 |
BERSAMIN, J. |
||||
| There is a definite distinction between instigation and entrapment. The Court highlighted the distinction in People v. Bayani,[20] viz: 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." | |||||
|
2010-11-24 |
NACHURA, J. |
||||
| Findings of trial courts, which are factual in nature and which involve credibility of witnesses, are accorded respect when no glaring errors; gross misapprehension of facts; or speculative, arbitrary, and unsupported conclusions can be gathered from such findings.[7] None of these circumstances is present in this case. The Court therefore sustains the findings of fact of the trial court, as affirmed by the CA, particularly on the weight given to the testimony of the victim's son, Ramon, Jr. | |||||
|
2010-03-03 |
VELASCO JR., J. |
||||
| 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.[10] | |||||
|
2009-04-07 |
VELASCO JR., J. |
||||
| Charges of extortion and frame-up are frequently made in this jurisdiction. Courts are, thus, cautious in dealing with such accusations, which are quite difficult to prove in light of the presumption of regularity in the performance of the police officers' duties. To substantiate such defense, which can be easily concocted, the evidence must be clear and convincing[15] and should show that the members of the buy-bust team were inspired by any improper motive or were not properly performing their duty. Otherwise, the police officers' testimonies on the operation deserve full faith and credit.[16] | |||||
|
2009-01-19 |
YNARES-SANTIAGO, J. |
||||
| Q Now after recovering that 2 P500 bills from the accused what will be, were you able to recover? A I recovered from the accused the money and it was SPO3 Marino Garcia who recovered the 25 grams of shabu conducted.[15] Prosecutions involving illegal drugs depend largely on the credibility of the police officers who conducted the buy-bust operation.[16] It is a fundamental rule that findings of the trial courts which are factual in nature and which involve credibility are accorded respect when no glaring errors; gross misapprehension of facts; or speculative, arbitrary, and unsupported conclusions can be gathered from such findings. The reason for this is that the trial court is in a better position to decide the credibility of witnesses, having heard their testimonies and observed their deportment and manner of testifying during the trial. The rule finds an even more stringent application where said findings are sustained by the Court of Appeals.[17] | |||||