Case No.

72
People vs. Figueroa
G.R. No. 186141
April 11, 2012

Facts:

There were two information filed against the accused on illegal “possession, direct custody and
control” of dangerous drugs; and on illegal attempt to sell, give away, distribute and deliver
dangerous drugs. Both are in violations of RA 9165 or Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of
2002. On June 20 2004, the PNP received a report from an informant about drug-pushing
activities of accused Figueroa alias “Baby”. After conducting discreet surveillance after Figueroa
made contact with the informant that the shabu is already available and agreed to deliver the drug
on the same day. During the said meet up, Figueroa showed the shabu to PO3 Callora. When
PO3 Callora was about to hand over the payment, Figueroa sensed the presence of police officers
nearby and in fear, ran away with her vehicle. Thus, the act was not consummated.

Figueroa was acquitted for the first information filed against him for the failure of the
prosecution to establish his guilt. While on the other, the trial court found him guilty beyond
reasonable doubt. Aggrieved, accused filed a petition for review to the Supreme Court,
questioning the decision of the trial court and the Court of Appeals regarding to the irregularity
of the investigation made by the PNP which is an unauthorized personnel to investigate such and
the case be with the PDEA (Philippine Drug Enforcement Agency) and such inconsistencies of
the testimonies of the arresting officers as a failure to establish his guilt.

Issue:

Whether or not the trial court erred in the decision on finding the accused guilty of the offense of
attempt to sell shabu as provided under Sec. 26, Art. II of RA 9165 and such allegedly
irregularity as a ground of dismissal of such case?

Ruling:

No. Such grounds are not a ground for the dismissal of the case. Sec. 86 does not invalidate
operations on account of the law enforcer’s failure to coordinate with the PDEA. The court noted
that the said provision and similar Internal Rules and Regulations are silent with regards to the
consequences of the failure of the PNP to coordinate with the PDEA in conducting buy-bust
operations. The alleged conflicting and contradictory testimonies of PO3 Callora and P/Insp.
Pepito Garcia (prosecution witnesses) are as what the Court of Appeals said "referring to minor
details, and not in actuality touching upon the central fact of the crime, do not impair the
witnesses’ credibility" nor do they overcome the presumption that the arresting officers have
regularly performed their official duties.

Hence, accused is guilty beyond reasonable doubt.

Case No. 73
Ladonga vs. People of the Philippines
G.R. No. 141066

Facts:
Spouses Evangelina and Adronico Ladonga, allegedly conspired, willfully and knowingly that
they did not have sufficient funds deposited with the United Coconut Planters Bank (UCPB),
drew and issue UCPB Check No. 284743 postdated in the amount of P9,075.55, payable to
private complainant Alfredo Oculam, and thereafter, without informing the private complainant
that they did not have sufficient funds deposited with the bank to cover up the amount of the
check, did then and there willfully, unlawfully and feloniously pass on, indorse, give and deliver
the said check to Alfredo by way of rediscounting of the aforementioned checks; however, upon
presentation of the check to the drawee bank for encashment, the same was dishonored for the
reason that the account of the accused had already been closed, to the damage and prejudice of
Alfredo. Co-accused Evangelina, on her defense, argued that the Article 10 of the Revised Penal
Code is not applicable to Special Penal Laws, where they allegedly conspired to the issuance of
the said “bounced” checks. But the RTC and the CA found her guilty together with her co-
accused to the said offense.

Issue:

Whether or not conspiracy is applicable in violations of Batas Pambansa Bilang 22, by invoking
art. 10 of RPC?

Ruling:

YES. Some provisions of the Revised Penal Code, especially with the addition of the second
sentence in Article 10, are applicable to special laws. It submits that B.P. Blg. 22 does not
provide any prohibition regarding the applicability in a suppletory character of the provisions of
the Revised Penal Code to it.

Article 10 of the RPC reads as follows: ART. 10. Offenses not subject to the provisions of this
Code. – Offenses which are or in the future may be punishable under special laws are not subject
to the provisions of this Code. This Code shall be supplementary to such laws, unless the latter
should specially provide the contrary. The article is composed of two clauses. The first provides
that offenses which in the future are made punishable under special laws are not subject to the
provisions of the RPC, while the second makes the RPC supplementary to such laws.

But due to the failure of the prosecution to prove the allegation of such conspiracy, hence, the
Supreme Court find the petitioner acquitted.
Case No. 74
People vs. Pagkalinawan
G.R. No. 184805

Facts:
The informant introduced PO1 Memoracion to Virgilio Pagkalinawan y Silvestre alyas Berto as
a taxi driver who wanted to buy shabu. Berto immediately took the PhP 500 buy-bust money
from PO1 Memoracion and showed three (3) plastic sachets containing shabu in his palm, and
asked the poseur-buyer to pick one. Once PO1 Memoracion took hold of the shabu, he took off
his cap, which was the pre-arranged signal for the rest of the team to close in and arrest
Berto. Berto suddenly became suspicious of PO3 Vicua, who was coming up to them, so he
attempted to flee the scene. PO1 Memoracion was able to stop him and ordered him to empty his
pockets. The other two (2) sachets of shabu were recovered from him and the appropriate
markings were made on them. Berto was identified later on as appellant Pagkalinawan.
Accused, on his defense, contended that he was watching television inside their house when
suddenly, armed men barged into the house and introduced themselves as policemen. One of
them pointed a gun at him and asked where he was keeping the shabu. He denied having what
the policemen were looking after. Despite his denial, the policemen still searched his
house. When they could not find any prohibited drugs there, the policemen brought him to the
Drug Enforcement Unit of the Taguig City Police Station. At the police station, he was told by
the policemen to amicably settle the case with them. But because he did not heed their order,
cases for violation of RA 9165 were filed against him by the policemen.

After the presentation of evidences and the course of trial, the court and Court of Appeals, ruled
that the prosecution was able to discharge the statutory burden of guilt beyond reasonable doubt.
Aggrieved, accused filed an appeal to the Supreme Court, hence this petition.

Issue:
Whether or not the lower courts averred on the decision that the said operation was an
instigation, which the accused contends?

Ruling:
No. Contention of the Accused bereft of basis, hence the appeal is denied. 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. It was stressed that in applying the objective test,
the details of the purported transaction during the buy-bust operation must be clearly and
adequately shown, i.e., the initial contact between the poseur-buyer and the pusher, the offer to
purchase, and the promise or payment of the consideration until the consummation of the sale by
the delivery of the illegal drug subject of the sale. It further emphasized that the manner by
which the initial contact was made, whether or not through an informant, the offer to purchase
the drug, the payment of the buy-bust money, and the delivery of the illegal drug, whether to the
informant alone or the police officer, must be subject of strict scrutiny by courts to insure that
law-abiding citizens are not unlawfully induced to commit an offense.
In this case, Accused immediately took the PhP 500 buy-bust money from PO1 Memoracion and
showed him three pieces of sachet containing shabu and asked him to pick one. Once PO1
Memoracion got the shabu, he gave the pre-arranged signal and appellant was arrested. The facts
categorically show a typical buy-bust operation as a form of entrapment. The police officers
conduct was within the acceptable standards for the fair and honorable administration of justice.
Thus, Accused is guilty beyond reasonable doubt.