This case has been cited 2 times or more.
|
2015-02-18 |
DEL CASTILLO, J. |
||||
| The Court is not impressed with appellant's insistence that the failure to present the poseur-buyer is fatal to the prosecution. It must be noted that whatever relevant information the poseur-buyer may have was also equally known to the police officers who testified for the prosecution during trial. This is considering that they all participated in the planning and implementation of the buy-bust operation and were all direct witnesses to the actual sale of the shabu, the appellant's arrest immediately thereafter, and the recovery from him of the marked money. Hence, the testimony of the poseur-buyer was not indispensable or necessary; it would have been cumulative merely, or corroborative at best.[22] | |||||
|
2014-08-18 |
DEL CASTILLO, J. |
||||
| Appellant's insistence that the failure to present the poseur-buyer is fatal to the prosecution fails to impress. "The relevant information acquired by the ['poseur-buyer'] was equally known to the police officers who gave evidence for the prosecution at the trial. They all took part in the planning and implementation of the [buy-bust] operation, and all were direct witnesses to the actual sale of the [shabu, the appellant's] arrest immediately thereafter, and the recovery from [her] x x x of the marked money x x x. The testimony of the [poseur-buyer] was not therefore indispensable or necessary; it would have been cumulative merely, or corroborative at best."[19] His testimony can therefore be dispensed with since the illicit transaction was actually witnessed and adequately proved by the prosecution witnesses.[20] | |||||