ENTRAPMENT IS NOT AN ABSOLUTORY CAUSE Example: Facts: HELD True, Samson smoothed the way for the introduction

uction of the prohibited drugs but that was after the accused had already planned its importation and ordered for said drug. Samson neither induced nor instigated the accused to import the opium in question, but pretended to have an understanding with the Collector of Customs. innocent person is induced to commit a crime merely to prosecute him, but it is simply a trap set to catch a criminal. (People vs. Lua Chua and Uy Se Tieng) If the accused had not yet ordered for opium in Hong Kong when he talked with the Collector of Customs but that on the strength of the assurance of the Collector of Customs, he later ordered for opium in Hongkong, it would be instigation, not entrapment, because the accused was instigated to import a prohibited Drug, a crime punished by Art. 192. Accused wrote to his correspondent in HK to send him a shipment of opium which was already ready for shipment to Cebu. Collector of Customs of Cebu received a tip about the intended shipment of opium Collector will remove all difficulties for P2,000.00 Juan Samson, a secret serviceman, pretended to smooth the way for the introduction fo the prohibited drug. Agents of the law seized the opium upon landing. Accused prosecuted.

ENTRAPMENT AND INSTIGATION DISTIGUISHED

Entrapment No bar to the prosecution and

Instigation Accused must be acquitted

conviction of the lawbreaker Entrapper resorts to ways and means to execute the criminal plan of capturing the lawbreaker Originates from the criminal mind Do not exempt the criminal from liability Person planned or about to commit a crime and ways and means are resorted to by a public officer to trap and catch the criminal Not a defense

Instigator inducing the wouldbe defendant into committing the offense, and himself becomes a co-principal Law enforcer conceives the commission of the crime and suggests to the accused who adopts the idea and carries into execution Exempt criminal from liability Public officer or a private detective induces an innocent person to commit a crime and would arrest him upon or after the commission of the crime by the latter. Absolutory cause

INSTIGATION MUST BE MADE BY A PUBLIC OFFICER OR PRIVATE DETECTIVE A criminal act is not punishable if the accused was induced by public detective ( State vs. Hayes) Courts shall condemn this practice by directing an acquittal whenever it appears that the public authorities or private detectives have taken active steps to lead the accused into the commission of the act. (Saunders vs. People) Instigation is a private individual, not performing public function, both are criminally liable.

THERE IS NEITHER INSTIGATION NOR ENTRAPMENT WHEN THE VIOLATION OF THE LAW IS SIMPLY DISCOVERED People vs. Tan Tiong

ASSURANCE OF IMMUNITY BY A PUBIC OFFICER DOES NOT EXEMPT A PERSON FROM CRIMINAL LIABILITY. People vs. Alabas

COMPLETE DEFENSES IN CRIMINAL CASES

1. Any of the essential elements of the crime charged is not proved by the prosecution and the elements proved do not constitute any crime. 2. The act of the accused falls under any of the justifying circumstances. (Art. 11) 3. The case of the accused falls under any of the exempting circumstances. (Art.12) 4. The case is covered by any of the absolutory causes: a. Spontaneous desistance during attempted stage (Art. 6), and no crime under another provision of the Code or other penal law is committed. b. Light felony is only attempted or frustrated, and is not against person or property ( Art. 7) c. The accessory is a relative of the principal (Art. 20) d. Legal grounds for arbitrary detention (Art. 124) e. Legal grounds for trespass. (Art. 280) f. The crime of theft, swindling or malicious mischief is committed against a relative. (Art. 332) g. When only slight or less serious physical injuries are inflicted by the person who surprised his spouse or daughter in the act of sexual intercourse with another person. (Art. 247) h. Marriage of the offender with the offended party when the crime committed is rape, abduction, seduction, or acts of lasciviousness. (Art. 344) i. Instigation. 5. Guilt of the accused not established beyond reasonable doubt. 6. Prescription of crimes. (Art. 89) 7. Pardon by the offended party before the institution of criminal action in crime against chastity. (Art. 344) MITIGATING CIRCUMSTANCES Definition: are those which, if present in the commission of the crime, do not entirely free the actor from criminal liability, but serve only to reduce the penalty. Basis: Diminution of either freedom of action, intelligence or intent, or on the lesser perversity of the offender. CLASSES OF MITIGATING CIRCUMSTANCES 1. Ordinary Mitigating

 Enumerated in subsections 1 to 10 of Art. 13 (if Art. 69, is not applicable) 2. Privileged Mitigating a. Art. 68 Penalty to be imposed upon a person under eighteen years of age. b. Art. 69 Penalty to be imposed when the crime committed is not wholly excusable c. Art. 64 Rules for the application of penalties which contains three periods PRIVILEDGED MITIGATING CIRCUMSTANCES APPLICABLE ONLY TO PARTICULAR CRIMES 1. Voluntary release of the person illegally detained w/in 3 days without the offender attaining his purpose and before the institution of criminal action. (penalty: one degree lower) 2. Abandonment without justification of the spouse who committed adultery. (penalty: one degree lower) DISTINCTIONS ORDINARY MITIGATING Susceptible of being offset by any aggravating circumstance Not offset by an aggravating circumstance Applying penalty in its minimum period, in case of divisible penalty. People vs. Honradez PRIVILEDGES MITIGATING Cannot be offset by aggravating circumstance Imposing the penalty lower by one or two degrees than that provided by law for the crimes

MITIGATING CIRCUMSTANCES ONLY REDUCE THE PENALTY, BUT DO NOT CHANGE THE NATURE OF THE CRIME People vs. Talam