ARANETA VS.

CA
G.R. No. L-46638July 9, 1986
Facts:
Atty. Aquilina Araneta was charged with violation of Sec. 3-B, R.A. 3019 (Anti-Graft and
CorruptPractices Act).Gertrudes Yoyongco is the widow of Antonio Yoyongco, an employee of the
NIA. Upon the death of herhusband, she approached the appellant, a hearing officer of the
Workmen's Compensation Unit, to inquireabout the procedure for filing a claim for death
compensation, and she prepared the application forms andattachments and filed them in San
Fernando, Pampanga.Complainant went back to San Fernando to verify the status of her claim, and
was informed that othercivil documents were need. She secured these documents and went back,
but was told that her claim papers had been forwarded to the accused. So she went to see the
appellant.The accused told Yoyongco that she had to pay Php100, so that her claim would be acted
upon. Thecomplainant told that if the appellant would process her claim, she would pay upon its
approval. Theappellant was adamant. She would not agree to the complainant's proposal. According
to her, on previousoccasions certain claimants made similar promises but they failed to live up to
them. Yoyongco went toher brother-in-law, a colonel and chief of the CIS, Philippine Constabulary,
to inform him of the demandof the appellant. He gave the complainant two 50-peso bills, and
instructed her to go to Col. Laureaga forhelp.Laureaga instructed Lt. Carlos to entrap the appellant.
The bills were marked, and Carlos, Beleno, Balcosand Yoyongco proceeded to the office of the
accused.The complainant and Balcos approached the appellant. Carlos and Beleno stationed
themselves outsidethe room and observed events through a glass window. There were three other
persons inside the office
–
Atty. Herminio Garcia, Renato de Lara, and Gregorio Ocampo.Yoyongco requested once again the
accused to process her claim; she countered by asking the former ifshe had the money. Yoyongco
brought out the bills and handed them to the accused. As the accused tookhold of the money, Balcos
grabbed her hand and told her she was under arrest; whereas, Carlos andBeleno helped in the
arrest of the appellant.Contention of the accused: The accused contends that the CA erred in not
acquitting the petitioner on the basis of entrapment evidence devised by members of the Philippine
Constabulary.Contention of the state: The state contends that the accused confused entrapment
with instigation
Issue:
Whether or not the accused confused entrapment with instigation
Decision:
There is entrapment when law officers employ ruses and schemes to ensure the apprehension
ofthe criminal while in the actual commission of the crime. There is instigation when the accused
wasinduced to commit the crime. The difference in the nature of the two lies in the origin of the
criminalintent. In entrapment, the mens rea originates from the mind of the criminal. The idea and
the resolve tocommit the crime comes from him. In instigation, the law officer conceives the
commission of the crimeand suggests to the accused who adopts the Idea and carries it into
execution.The legal effects of entrapment and instigation are also different. As already stated,
entrapment does notexempt the criminal from liability. Instigation does.Petition made by accused
has been dismissed; Decision against accused was affirmed