1 TY v.
PEOPLE could be discharged, for fear that her mother’s health might
GR NO. 149275 | September 27, 2004 | J. TINGA
EXEMPTING CIRCUMSTANCE – IRRESISTABLE
FORCE/UNCONTROLLABLE FEAR
DOCTRINE:
For the exempting circumstance of uncontrollable fear be successfully
invoked the following requisites must concur: (1) Existence of an
uncontrollable fear; (2) The fear must be real and imminent; and (3)
The fear of an injury is greater than or at least equal to that committed
FACTS:
 Vicky Ty was charged with seven Informations for violation
of B.P 22.
 Ty’s mother Chua Lao So Un was confined at Manila Doctors
Hospital from October 1990 to June 1992. For her medical
bills, Ty signed an Acknowledgement of Responsibility for
Payment in the contract of admission.
 Subsequently, Ty’s sister was also confined in the hospital.
Their total bill amounted to P1,075,592.95.
 Ty executed a promissory note wherein she assumed
payment of the obligation in installments. Likewise, she
drew several postdated checks, each with the amount of
P30,000, against Metrobank payable to the hospital to
assure payment.
 The hospital deposited the said checks but all were
dishonored due to insufficiency of funds with the Account
Closed advice. Demand letters were sent to Ty but all were
not heeded which prompted the hospital to file the
complaints.
 Ty contended that she issued the checks due to an
uncontrollable fear of a greater injury. Shr was forced to
issue the checks to obtain the release for her mother. She
alleged that the hospital inhumanely and harshly treated
her mother and would not discharge her unless the bills
were paid.
 The hospital allegedly deprived her mother of room
facilities, late food deliveries and even suspended her
medical treatment.
RTC: Found Ty guilty of seven counts of violation of BP 22.
CA: Affirmed the trial court and rejected the defenses of
involuntariness in the issuance of the checks. The mere act of
issuing a worthless check punishable as a special offense, it being
malum prohibitum.
ISSUE:Whether or not Ty issued the checks under the impulse of an
uncontrollable fear of a fear or in avoidance of a greater evil or injury
HELD:NO. For the exempting circumstance of uncontrollable fear be
successfully invoked the following requisites must concur:
(1) Existence of an uncontrollable fear;
(2) The fear must be real and imminent; and
(3) The fear of an injury is greater than or at least equal to that
committed
The uncontrollable fear should be based on a real, imminent or
reasonable fear for one’s life or limb. A mere threat of a future injury
is not enough. It should not be speculative, fanciful, or remote. A
person invoking uncontrollable fear must show that the compulsion
was such that it reduced him to a mere instrument acting not only
without will but against his will as well. It must be of such character
as to leave no opportunity to the accused for escape.
In this case, Ty claims that she was compelled to issue the checks, a
condition the hospital allegedly demanded of her before her mother
deteriorate further due to the inhumane treatment of the hospital or
worse, her mother might commit suicide. Her fear is merely
speculative.
Ty has also failed to convince the Court that she was left with no
choice but to commit a crime. First, she admitted that the hospital
allowed collateral in the form of postdated checks or jewelry. Second,
she admitted that her counsel advised not to open the bank account
or issue the postdated the checks as it will be a big problem and may
result to a violation of BP 22. She could have avoided committing the
crime if she really wanted to because the hospital allowed other
forms of securities. The evil she sought to avoid was merely expected
or anticipated.
2 PEOPLE v FELICIANO
G.R. NO. 190179 | October 20, 2010 | VELASCO
Entrapment vs. Instigation
DOCTRINE:
The essential elements of the crime of illegal sale of drugs have been
established, i.e., (1) the identity of the buyer and the seller, the object
of the sale, and the consideration; and (2) the delivery of the thing
sold and the payment for it.
FACTS:
 P02 Monte received a telephone call from a concerned
citizen. The caller reported that an illegal drug trade was
being operated by a certain “Janggo”. Such information
validated the letter-complaint the police has earlier
received, implicating a similar person called “Janggo” in
drug-related activities.
 After receiving the telephone call, P02 Monte informed his
team leader, Police Inspector Pamor. He then instructed
Monte to get the assistance of the concerned citizen for the
immediate apprehension of Janggo.
 P02 Monte was designated as poseur-buyer. After
coordinating with the PDEA, the buy-bust team and
confidential informant went to the target area.
 Upon receiving and examining the plastic sachet, P02
Monte took off his cap, the pre-arranged signal to signify
the consummation of the sale. Monte then introduced
himself as a police officer.
 In open court, Janggo was identified as accused Feliciano,
while the woman as accused Laurora.
 Janngo interposed the defense of denial. Live-in partners
Feliciano and Laurora claimed that at the night of their
arrest, they were preparing dinner when police officers just
barged inside their house.
 The police officers then put them under arrest without any
reason or explanation. They alleged that police officers
asked them to produce P10,000.00 in exchange for their
release, failing to produce the amount, charges were then
filed against them.
 RTC: Guilty
 CA: Affirmed
 Accused: the police officers who conducted the buy-bust
operation had sufficient time to obtain a warrant of arrest
considering that they were already in possession of
pertinent information. Thus they argue that the police
officers had no basis to show any urgency upon which to
justify a warrantless arrest.
ISSUE:Whether or not the buy-bust operation was valid.
HELD: YES It is settled that a buy-bust operation is a form of
entrapment that is resorted to for trapping and capturing criminals. It
is legal and has been proved to be an effective method of
apprehending drug peddlers, provided due regard to constitutional
and legal safeguards is undertaken.
Clearly, in this case, the buy-bust operation was proper. All the
essential elements of the crime of illegal sale of drugs have been
established, i.e., (1) the identity of the buyer and the seller, the object
of the sale, and the consideration;
and (2) the delivery of the thing sold and the payment for it. What is
material is the proof that the transaction or sale actually took place.
The delivery of the illicit drug to the poseur-buyer and the receipt by
the seller of the marked money successfully consummate the buy-
bust transaction.
In the instant case, the prosecution was able to establish these
elements beyond moral certainty. Accused-appellants sold the shabu
for PhP 200 to PO2 Monte posing as buyer; the said drug was seized
and identified as a prohibited drug and subsequently presented in
evidence; there was actual exchange of the marked money and
contraband; and finally, accused-appellant Feliciano was fully aware
that he was selling and delivering a prohibited drug.
DENIED
3 Chang v People
G.R. No. 165111| July 21, 2006 | CARPIO MORALES, J.
Topic: Entrapment v. Instigation
FACTS:
 Petitioner Roberto Estanislao Chang (Chang) was the
Municipal Treasurer of Makati. Petitioner Pacifico D. San
Mateo (San Mateo) was the Chief of Operations, Business
Revenue Examination, Audit Division, Makati Treasurers
Office.
 By Information dated June 20, 1991, petitioners were, along
with Edgar Leoncito Feraren (Feraren), a Driver-Clerk also of
the Makati Treasurers Office, charged before the
Sandiganbayan to have willfully, unlawfully and criminally
demanded and received the amount of P125,000 from
Group Developers, Inc. (GDI) through its employee Mario
Magat (Magat) in consideration of the issuance by
petitioners of a Certificate of Examination that it had no tax
liability to the Municipality, albeit it had not settled the
assessed deficiency tax in the amount of P494,000.
 According to the prosecution, Chang and San Mateo offered
to clear GDI with its tax liability of P494,000 if they pay
P125,000 to Chang and San Mateo. However, when Magat
handed a check with the Municipal Treasurer of Makati as
payee, Chang and San Mateo reiterated their intention that
it should be payable to them or else, if the payment is not
made, they could effect the closure of GDI.
 Magat conferred this with the president of GDI. They
coordinated with the NBI which planned an entrapment
operation.
 On the morning of June 19, 1991, Magat informed the NBI
that the payment was to be made that day around
lunchtime. The NBI immediately formed a team to conduct
an entrapment. On the request of the NBI, Magat brought
hundred peso bills to be added to the boodle money to be
used in the entrapment operation. The genuine as well as
the boodle money and the brown envelope where the
money was placed were then laced with fluorescent
powder.
 On the morning of June 19, 1991, Magat informed the NBI
that the payment was to be made that day around
lunchtime. The NBI immediately formed a team to conduct
an entrapment. On the request of the NBI, Magat brought
hundred peso bills to be added to the boodle money to be
used in the entrapment operation. The genuine as well as
the boodle money and the brown envelope where the
money was placed were then laced with fluorescent
powder.
 VERSION OF THE DEFENSE: basically the opposite; it was
GDI through Magat who offered the illegal transaction and
that what transpired during their arrest was not
entrapment but an instigation.
 The Sandiganbayan convicted Chang and San Mateo and
found them GUILTY beyond reasonable doubt for the
violation of sec. 3 (b) of RA 3019. The driver Feraren was
acquitted.
ISSUE: WON what happened was an entrapment or instigation? –
ENTRAPMENT.
HELD:
Maintaining their innocence, petitioners proffer that what transpired
was not an entrapment but an instigation, which is an absolutory
cause in criminal prosecution. They point out that when Magat went
to the NBI on June 12, 1991, no date, time or place was as yet known
to them for purposes of the planned entrapment, leading to no other
conclusion except that all the activities on . . . June 19, 1991, the day
of the supposed pay-off in the amount of P125,000, were all
orchestrated by . . . Magat so as not to lose face with the NBI.
As to petitioners argument that what transpired on June 19, 1991 was
an instigation and not an entrapment, the same fails.
There is entrapment when law officers employ ruses and schemes to
ensure the apprehension of the criminal while in the actual
commission of the crime. There is instigation when the accused is
induced to commit the crime. The difference in the nature of the two
lies in the origin of the criminal intent. In entrapment, the mens
rea originates from the mind of the criminal. The idea and the resolve
to commit the crime comes from him. In instigation, the law officer
conceives the commission of the crime and suggests to the accused
who adopts the idea and carries it into execution.
From the evidence for the prosecution, it was clearly established that
the criminal intent originated from the minds of petitioners. Even
before the June 19, 1991 meeting took place, petitioners already
made known to Magat that GDI only had two options to prevent the
closure of the company, either to pay the assessed amount
of P494,601.11 to the Municipality, or pay the amount of P125,000 to
them.
WHEREFORE, the petition is DENIED. The challenged Sandiganbayan
decision is AFFIRMED.