People v. Basilgo
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: Allen Basilgo y Canonigo was charged with violating Section 4, Article II of Republic Act 6425, the Dangerous Drugs Act of 1977. The Information alleged that on November 24, 1991, in Mandaue City, Basilgo unlawfully sold, delivered, and gave away 100 grams of marijuana, acting as a broker in the transaction. Procedural History: The case originated in the Regional Trial Court of Cebu, Branch 28, Mandaue City, where an Information was filed against Basilgo. After entering a plea of not guilty, trial proceeded. On June 5, 1992, the trial court rendered a decision finding Basilgo guilty beyond reasonable doubt, sentencing him to life imprisonment and a fine of P20,000.00, with subsidiary imprisonment in case of insolvency. The accused was credited with the period of his preventive imprisonment. The prosecution's evidence detailed a buy-bust operation conducted by NARCOM agents on November 24, 1991, leading to Basilgo's arrest and the confiscation of marijuana. Basilgo testified in his defense, alleging he was framed and forced to admit possession of the drugs. The Petition: Aggrieved by the trial court's decision, the accused-appellant filed an appeal with the Supreme Court. He argued that the trial court erred in finding him guilty of selling marijuana and, alternatively, that if a sale did occur, it was only due to the inducement of the NARCOM team. The appeal questioned the validity of the buy-bust operation and the evidence presented. The Supreme Court, however, affirmed the trial court's decision, finding the appellant caught in flagrante delicto and distinguishing entrapment from illegal inducement. The Court modified the penalty, sentencing the appellant to an indeterminate period ranging from six months of arresto mayor to two years and four months of prision correccional.
Issue(s)
Whether the RTC erred in finding that the accused sold dried marijuana leaves for P250.00 to agent Arriesgado. Whether the RTC erred in not finding that the accused sold marijuana only upon inducement by the NARCOM team.
Ruling
The Supreme Court affirmed the decision of the Regional Trial Court, finding the accused guilty beyond reasonable doubt. However, it modified the penalty, sentencing the appellant to an indeterminate period ranging from six (6) months of arresto mayor as minimum to two (2) years and four (4) months of prision correccional as maximum, and deleted the fine of P20,000.00.
Ratio Decidendi
On the issue of whether the RTC erred in finding that the accused sold dried marijuana leaves for P250.00 to agent Arriesgado: The Court held that the findings of fact of the trial court on the credibility of witnesses are accorded great weight and respect on appeal. The testimonies of the arresting officers were positive, while that of the accused was negative. No improper motive was imputed to the arresting officers, who are presumed to have regularly performed their official duties. The accused was caught in flagrante delicto, and his conviction was based on the testimony of the poseur-buyer, corroborated by other team agents. The corpus delicti was established, and proof of the transaction sufficed. The Court reiterated the rule that appellate courts will generally not disturb the trial court's findings on credibility. On the issue of whether the RTC erred in not finding that the accused sold marijuana only upon inducement by the NARCOM team: The Court distinguished between entrapment and instigation. Entrapment involves employing means to trap a lawbreaker already predisposed to commit the offense, while instigation involves inducing a person to commit a crime they would not otherwise have committed. The Court found that the present case was a valid entrapment, not instigation. The crime was consummated when the poseur-buyer offered to buy marijuana, handed over the buy-bust money, and the accused readily gave him the packet containing the marijuana. At this point, the criminal intent originated from the accused, and the NARCOM agents merely apprehended him in the act. The buy-bust operation is a recognized form of entrapment used to catch criminals in flagrante delicto.
Main Doctrine
A buy-bust operation, when properly conducted, constitutes a valid form of entrapment for apprehending a criminal in flagrante delicto. The crime is consummated when the poseur-buyer hands over the buy-bust money and the accused delivers the prohibited drug in exchange.