This case has been cited 1 times or more.
|
2011-06-15 |
PEREZ, J. |
||||
| The case cited by appellant, i.e., People v. Fulgarillas, [43] in support of the aforesaid allegation is not applicable in the present case. In People v. Fulgarillas, the poseur-buyer was never presented as a witness, so, the court held that the testimonies of the rest of the members of the buy-bust team are merely hearsay. There was even no testimony that when the appellant therein handed the stuff to the poseur-buyer, the latter in turn handed the marked money. The only evidence therein that could prove the sale transaction of illicit drug was the marked money but the records did not show that the markings thereon were previously blotted. Thus, the Court held therein that "[t]he act of blottering is the correct and regular procedure by which the regularity of the preparation of marked money may be established. Without such blotter, all attempts at establishing regularity remains dubious." [44] | |||||