PEOPLE v.

GENITA
GR No. 126171, March 11, 2004
Sandoval-Gutierrez, J.:
Facts:
On December 17, 1991, at around 8:00 oclock in the evening, while the victims Reynaldo Timbal and Jesus Bascon were loading
firewood in a truck in Butuan City, Federico Genita, Jr. who was drunk and armed with an M-14 rifle, asked Reynaldo for a Christmas
gift. Reynaldo told him to just come back because they were still loading firewood. Genita left the place. Not long after, he returned
and fired his gun at Jesus feet, hitting his left leg. He immediately jumped into the truck. Genita then went near its bumper and fired
at the tire near the chassis. Then he changed the magazine of his gun and fired again at Jesus, this time, hitting his right leg.
Reynaldo ran away, his right hand covering his head. Genita chased him and fired at him, hitting his nape and right hand. After the
commotion, the victims co-workers who were able to take refuge from the cascade of bullets returned to the scene and found the dead
body of Reynaldo. Jesus was immediately brought to the Butuan City General Hospital but died thereafter.
Genita, relying on the exempting circumstance of accident as his defense, presented a different version of the incident. However, he
was charged with two counts of murder and sentencing him to suffer reclusion perpetua for each count. On June 14, 1996, the trial
court rendered their decision finding Genita guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the charges. Hence, this appeal.
Issues:
Whether or not the trial court gravely erred in not giving exculpatory weight to the exempting circumstance of accident interposed by
Genita.
Held:
No. The Solicitor General maintains that considering the number of gunshot wounds inflicted on the victims, the shooting could not
have been an accident. Genitas version that he "accidentally shot" the two victims is incredible. Accident is an exempting
circumstance under Article 12 of the Revised Penal Code. It must be stressed that in raising this defense, appellant has the burden of
the evidence and it was incumbent upon him to establish that he was exempt from criminal liability. He must show with clear and
convincing proof that: 1) he was performing a lawful act with due care, 2) the injury caused was by a mere accident, and 3) he had no
fault or intention of causing the injury. Considering appellants evidence, it is clear that the requisites of accident as an exempting
circumstance were not proven. First, Genitas manner of carrying his M-14 rifle negates his claim of "due care" in the performance of
an act. Knowing that his rifle was automatic, he should have seen to it that its safety lock was intact. Worse, he admitted that his finger
was constantly on the trigger. Second, the number of wounds sustained by the victims shows that the shooting was not merely
accidental. Both victims sustained more than one wound. And third, Genita manifested an unmistakable intent to kill the victims when
he reloaded his rifle after his first unsuccessful attempt to kill them. That Genita chased the victims and shot them several times
clearly show that he had the intent to kill them. His defense must necessarily fail.

PEOPLE v. FALLORINA
GR No. 137347, March 4, 2004
Callejo, Sr., J.:
Facts:
At about 2:30 p.m. of September 26, 1998, Vincent Jorojoro, Jr. asked permission from his mother Felicisima if he could play outside.
She agreed. Together with his playmate Whilcon Rodriguez, Vincent played with his kite on top of the roof of an
abandoned carinderia beside the road. Beside this carinderia was a basketball court, where Ricardo Salvo and his three friends, were
playing a game of basketball. Ricardo heard the familiar sound of a motorcycle coming from the main road across the basketball court.
He recognized PO3 Ferdinand Fallorina as the driver. Ricardo knew that the Fallorina abhorred children playing on the roof of
the carinderia.
Ricardo called on Vincent and Whilcon to come down from the roof. When the Fallorina saw the two children and shouted at them.
After hearing the shouts of the Fallorina, Whilcon immediately jumped down from the roof. When he heard Fallorinas shouts, Vincent
stood up and looked at the latter. Suddenly, Fallorina pointed his .45 caliber pistol towards the direction of Vincent and fired a shot and
the latter fell from the roof. Whilcon retreated and left his friend. Fallorina carried the Vincents hapless body in a waiting tricycle and
brought him to the Quezon City General Hospital where he was pronounced dead on arrival. Thereafter, Fallorina was nowhere to be
found. On September 29, 1998, Fallorina voluntarily surrendered to Major Isidro Suyo, the Chief of the MMDA Motorcycle Unit, and
was subsequently convicted by the RTC on the charge of murder, qualified by treachery and aggravated by abuse of public position.
Issues:
Whether or not the appellant is exempted from criminal liability due to the exempting circumstance of accident.
Held:
No. Whether or not Fallorina is exempt from criminal liability is a factual issue. Fallorina was burdened to prove, with clear and
convincing evidence, his affirmative defense that the victim's death was caused by his gun accidentally going off, the bullet hitting the
victim without his fault or intention of causing it. Under Article 12, paragraph 4, the elements of this exempting circumstance are (1) a
person is performing a lawful act; (2) with due care; (3) he causes an injury to another by mere accident; and (4) without any fault or
intention of causing it. An accident is an occurrence that "happens outside the sway of our will, and although it comes about through

some act of our will, lies beyond the bounds of humanly foreseeable consequences." If the consequences are plainly foreseeable, it
will be a case of negligence.
In this case, Fallorina failed to prove, with clear and convincing evidence, his defense. First. Fallorina appended to his counteraffidavit the pictures showing the hole on the roof of the carinderia to prove that he shot the victim accidentally. However, when the
investigating prosecutor propounded clarificatory questions on Fallorina relating to the pictures, the latter refused to answer. Second.
Fallorina did not see what part of the gun hit the victim. There is no evidence showing that the gun hit a hard object when it fell to the
ground, what part of the gun hit the ground and the position of the gun when it fell from the appellant's waist. Third. Fallorina testified
that the chamber of his pistol was loaded with bullets and was cocked when he placed it on his right waistline. He also testified that
the gun's safety lock was on. He was asked if the gun would fire if the hammer is moved backward with the safety lock in place, and
he admitted that even if he pulled hard on the trigger, the gun would not fire. Fourth. The trial court was witness as the appellant's
counsel himself proved that the defense proffered by the appellant was incredible. Fifth. After the shooting, the appellant refused to
surrender himself and his service firearm. He hid from the investigating police officers and concealed himself in the house of his
friend SPO3 Angelito Lam in Valenzuela City, and transferred from one house to another for three days to prevent his arrest.
PEOPLE v. BAYANI
GR No. 179150, June 17, 2008
Chico-Nazario, J.:
Facts:
On 3 March 2003, a confidential informant arrived at Police Station, where PO3 Virgilio Bernardo was on duty, and reported to the
Drug Enforcement Unit that one Delia Bayani was illegally trading drugs along Trinidad Street. Chief Superintendent Gerardo Ratuita
formed a team composed to conduct a buy-bust operation.
At around 10:30 in the morning of the same day, PO3 Bernardo and the informant went in front of the Bayanis house while the other
police officers positioned themselves within viewing distance. As they approached Bayani, the informant introduced Bernardo to her
as a buyer. PO3 Bernardo testified that he told Bayani that he wanted to buy P10,000.00 worth of shabu, and she agreed. Thereafter,
she handed him two sachets containing what is suspected to be shabu. PO3 Bernardo, in turn, gave the boodle money, after which he
grabbed the Bayanis right hand, apprehended her, and identified himself as a police officer. After the apprehension, the team brought
her before the Police Station investigator, while the drugs and the buy-bust money were turned over to the crime laboratory. Bayani
was charged with drug pushing, in violation of Section 5, Article II of Republic Act No. 9165, also known as the Comprehensive
Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002. She denied the charge, providing a different account of the story which was corroborated by his son.
The RTC later on found her guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the charge against her. Bayani appealed the decision to the CA, which
the latter dismissed. Hence, this petition.
Issue:
Whether or not the buy-bust operation constitute instigation.
Held:
No. 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 coprincipals, 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. In the present case,
PO3 Bernardo testified that Bayani stood in front of her house and was in possession of drugs readily available for anyone who would
buy them. PO3 Bernardo did not even have to employ any act of instigation or inducement, such as repeated requests for the sale of
prohibited drugs or offers of exorbitant prices.
PEOPLE v VICENTE SY
GR No. 171397, September 26, 2006
Garcia, J.:
Facts:
On 16 December 1998, the lady informant got in touch with PO3 Macario and told the latter that she had struck a deal with Vicente Sy
to buy Shabu worth PhP150,000.00. The buy-bust team was formed with PO3 Macario as the designated poseur buyer. The "boodle"
money was prepared in three bundles sandwiched with PhP500 bills marked with the initials of PO3 Macario, "DM". At around 11:30
pm, the lady informant tried to call Sy on the latter's cell phone but it was unattended. At around 1:00 am of 17 December, the lady
informant finally got in touch with Sy and told him that "I already have the money, we will go there." With that call, the buy-bust team
found out when and where the drug deal was to be made. They were to proceed to Room 1101 of the Trader's Hotel. In the room, Sy
proceeded to begin the transaction. PO3 Macario handed over the envelope containing the "boodle" money. Sy opened the envelope
took a look at the bundles and closed it again. Sy then proceeded to a nearby drawer, placed the envelope with money in the drawer,
took out a transparent plastic containing white crystalline substance and handed it over to PO3 Macario. Immediately thereafter, PO1

Galis, announced that they were police officers and PO3 Macario took hold of Sy's hand. Galis went to the drawer which was still
open and recovered another plastic package as well as the "boodle" money. Meanwhile, the lady informant opened the door of Rm.
1101 and signaled the rest of the team to come in. Sy was charged with violation of Republic Act No. 6425, as amended, otherwise
known as the "Dangerous Drugs Act of 1972." The RTC convicted him of the charge. The appeal was made directly to the Supreme
Court, which they transferred to the CA for appropriate action and disposition. The CA affirmed the RTC decision in toto. Hence, this
appeal.
Issues:
Whether or not a buy-bust operation in drug cases is constitutional.
Held:
Yes. Sy's challenge against the legality of "buy-bust" operations is already a closed issue. Thus, in People v. Bongalon, decided
January 23, 2002, the Court wrote on the nature and legality of such operation, to wit:
A buy bust operation is a form of entrapment that is resorted to for trapping and capturing felons in the execution of their
criminal plan. The operation is sanctioned by law and has consistently proved to be an effective method of apprehending drug
peddlers. Unless there is a clear and convincing evidence that the members of the buy-bust team were inspired by any
improper motive or were not properly performing their duty, their testimonies on the operation deserve full faith and credit.
In another case, in upholding the constitutionality and legality of "buy-bust" operation, the Court even adopted a test to determine the
authenticity thereof. Partly says the Court in that case:
We therefore stress that the "objective" test in buy-bust operations demands that the details of the purported transaction must
be clearly and adequately shown. This must start from the initial contact between the poseur-buyer and the pusher, the offer to
purchase, the promise or payment of the consideration until the consummation of the sale by the delivery of the illegal drug
subject of the sale. 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 the subject of strict scrutiny by courts to insure that law abiding citizens are not unlawfully
induced to commit an offense. Criminals must be caught but not at all cost. At the same time, however, examining the
conduct of the police should not disable courts into ignoring the accused's predisposition to commit the crime. If there is
overwhelming evidence of habitual delinquency, recidivism or plain criminal proclivity, then this must also be considered.
Courts should look at all factors to determine the predisposition of an accused to commit an offense in so far as they are
relevant to determine the validity of the defense of inducement.
Wherefore, the instant appeal is dismissed.