People v bartolome gr 191726, feb 6, 2013

FACTS:

OEL BARTOLOME y BAJO was charged with illegally selling shabu in violation of Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002.

After an informant went to the Anti-Illegal Drugs Special Operations Unit to report the illicit drug dealings of the accused. The Police Inspector
Cruz immediately instructed to conduct a buy-bust operation. PO1 Borban Paras acted as the poseur-buyer and he was given a 100php bill that he
marked with his initials BP. It was agreed that the informant would drop a cigarette butt in front of the suspect to identify him to Paras; and that
Paras would scratch his head to signal to the buy-bust team that the transaction with the suspect had been consummated.

Upon arriving at the target area, the team members positioned themselves in the vicinity of a store. The informant then approached a person who
was standing in front of the store and dropped a cigarette butt in front of the person. Paras, then only two meters away from the informant, saw
the dropping of the cigarette butt. Paras went towards the suspect and said to him: Pre pa-iskor nga. The suspect responded: Pre, piso na lang tong
hawak magkano ba kukunin mo? Paras replied: Ayos na yan, piso lang naman talaga ang kukunin ko, after which he handed the marked ₱100.00 bill to
the suspect, who in turn drew out a plastic sachet containing white substances from his pocket and gave the sachet to Paras. With that, Paras
scratched his head to signal the consummation of the sale. As the other members of the team were approaching, Paras grabbed the suspect. PO3
Rodrigo Antonio, another member of the team, confiscated the marked ₱100.00 bill from the suspect, who was identified as Noel
Bartolome y Bajo. Paras immediately marked the sachet at the crime scene with Bartolome’s initials NBB.

Bartolome was convicted by the RTC of the crime charged. In which the CA affirmed. Thus, the accused appealed to the SC for acquittal on the
ground that the operation mounted against him was not an entrapment but an instigation, contending that without the proposal and instigation
made by poseur buyer Paras no transaction would have transpired between them; that the police team did not show that its members had
conducted any prior surveillance of him.

The accused discredits the validity of his arrest by contending that the arrest resulted from an instigation, not from a legitimate entrapment. He
insists that the evidence of the Prosecution did not show him to be then looking for buyers of shabu when Paras and the informant approached
him; that it was Paras who proposed to buy shabu from him; and that consequently Paras instigated him to sell shabu. He submits that the
transaction would not have transpired without the proposal and instigation by Paras; that Paras initiated the commission of the crime by offering to
him ₱100.00 for the purchase of the shabu; and that he should be acquitted due to the absolutory cause of instigation

RULING:

The SC affirmed the decision of the CA. accused’s claim of being the victim of a vicious frame-up and extortion is unworthy of serious
consideration. The fact that frame-up and extortion could be easily concocted renders such defenses hard to believe. Thus, although drug-related
violators have commonly tendered such defenses to fend off or refute valid prosecutions of their drug-related violations, the Court has required
that such defenses, to be credited at all, must be established with clear and convincing evidence.

The insistence by the accused that he was entitled to the benefit of an absolutory cause as the result of an instigation is unwarranted. 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." As a general rule,
a buy-bust operation, considered as a form of entrapment, is a valid means of arresting violators of Republic Act No. 9165. It is an effective way of
apprehending law offenders in the act of committing a crime. In a buy-bust operation, the idea to commit a crime originates from the offender,
without anybody inducing or prodding him to commit the offense.

As here, the solicitation of drugs from appellant by the informant utilized by the police merely furnishes evidence of a course of conduct. The
police received an intelligence report that appellant has been habitually dealing in illegal drugs. They duly acted on it by utilizing an informant to
effect a drug transaction with appellant. There was no showing that the informant induced the appellant to sell illegal drugs to him.
OPHELIA HERNAN v. THE HONORABLE SANDIGANBAYAN

FACTS:

Hernan worked as a Supervising Fiscal Clerk at DOTC-CAR in Baguio City. By virtue of his position, she was designated as cashier,
disbursement and collection officer. As such, petitioner received cash and other collections from customers and clients for the payment of
telegraphic transfers, toll fees, and special message fees. The collections she received were deposited at the bank account of the DOTC at the Land
Bank of the Philippines (LBP), Baguio City Branch. a cash examination of accounts handled by Hernan was conducted. It was found out that
the deposit slips dated September 19, 1996 and November 29, 1996 bearing the amounts of P11,300.00 and P81,348.20, respectively, did not bear a
stamp receipt by LBP nor was it machine validated. Petitioner was then informed that the two aforesaid remittances were not acknowledged by the
bank. The auditors then found that petitioner duly accounted for the P81,348.20 remittance but not for the P11,300.00.

Accused-petitioner was charged with malversation of public funds with the amount of P11,300.00. RTC found the accused guilty.
Petitioner appealed to CA which affirmed her conviction but modified the penalty imposed. Upon motion, however, the CA set aside its decision
on the finding that it has no appellate jurisdiction over the case.

Petitioner appealed the case to Sandiganbayan which affirmed RTC’s decision but modified the penalty imposed. Petitioner filed a Motion for
Reconsideration which was denied in a Resolution dated August 31, 2010. On June 26, 2013, the Resolution denying petitioner’s MR became final
and executory.

RULING:

the judgment convicting the accused, petitioner herein, has already become final and executory and yet the penalty imposed thereon has
been reduced by virtue of the passage of said law. Because of this, not only must petitioner's sentence be modified respecting the settled rule on
the retroactive effectivity of laws, the sentencing being favorable to the accused, she may even apply for probation, as long as she does not possess
any ground for disqualification, in view of recent legislation on probation, or R.A. No. 10707 entitled An Act Amending Presidential Decree No. 968,
otherwise known as the "Probation Law of 1976," As Amended, allowing an accused to apply for probation in the event that she is sentenced to serve a
maximum term of imprisonment of not more than six (6) years when a judgment of conviction imposing a non-probationable penalty is appealed or
reviewed, and such judgment is modified through the imposition of a probationable penalty.

The Court deems it proper to reopen the instant case and recall the Entry of Judgment dated June 26, 2013 of the Sandiganbayan, which
imposed the penalty of six (6) years and one (1) day of prision mayor, as minimum, to eleven (11) years, six (6) months, and twenty-one (21) days
of prision mayor, as maximum. Instead, since the amount involved herein is P11,300.00, which does not exceed P40,000.00, the new penalty that
should be imposed is prision correccional in its medium and maximum periods, which has a prison term of two (2) years, four (4) months, and one
(1) day, to six (6) years. The Court, however, takes note of the presence of the mitigating circumstance of voluntary surrender appreciated by the
Sandiganbayan in favor of petitioner. Hence, taking into consideration the absence of any aggravating circumstance and the presence of one (1)
mitigating circumstance, the range of the penalty that must be imposed as the maximum term should be prision correccional medium to prision
correccional maximum in its minimum period, or from two (2) years, four (4) months, and one (1) day, to three (3) years, six (6) months, and
twenty (20) days, in accordance with Article 64 of the RPC. Applying the Indeterminate Sentence Law, the range of the minimum term that should
be imposed upon petitioners is anywhere within the period of arresto mayor, maximum to prision correccional minimum with a range of four (4)
months and one (1) day to two (2) years and four (4) months. Accordingly, petitioner is sentenced to suffer the indeterminate penalty of six (6)
months of arresto mayor, as minimum, to three (3) years, six (6) months, and twenty (20) days prision correccional, as maximum.

For as long as it is favorable to the accused, said recent legislation shall find application regardless of whether its effectivity comes after
the time when the judgment of conviction is rendered and even if service of sentence has already begun. The accused, in these applicable instances,
shall be entitled to the benefits of the new law warranting him to serve a lesser sentence, or to his release, if he has already begun serving his
previous sentence, and said service already accomplishes the term of the modified sentence. In the latter case, moreover, the Court, in the interest
of justice and expediency, further directs the appropriate filing of an action before the Court that seeks the reopening of the case rather than an
original petition filed for a similar purpose.

WHWEREFORE PETITION IS DENIED. SANDIAGN BAYAN’S DECISION IS AFFIRMED WITH MODIFICATION. Petitioner is hereby
sentenced to suffer the indeterminate penalty of six (6) months of arresto mayor, as minimum term, to three (3) years, six (6) months, and twenty
(20) days prision correccional, as maximum term.