This case has been cited 6 times or more.
|
2012-11-21 |
DEL CASTILLO, J. |
||||
| Lastly, anent appellants' contention that the police operatives should have first secured a search warrant, we agree with the observation of the trial court that it would have been impracticable to secure such a search warrant because appellants were not residing in the agreed meeting place (i.e., Room 65 of Patria Pension) at the time of the surveillance. The surveillance was conducted for the mere purpose of determining the respective roles and positions of the police operatives in anticipation of the buying transaction which was to happen there three days later. More important, in a buy-bust operation, the police operatives are not required to secure a search warrant because the violator is caught in flagrante delicto and the police officers, in the course of the operation, are not only authorized but duty-bound to apprehend the violator and to search him for anything that may have been part of or used in the commission of the crime.[31] | |||||
|
2011-11-23 |
LEONARDO-DE CASTRO, J. |
||||
| A buy-bust operation is far variant from an ordinary arrest; it is a form of entrapment which has repeatedly been accepted to be a valid means of arresting violators of the Dangerous Drugs Law. In a buy-bust operation, the violator is caught in flagrante delicto and the police officers conducting the operation are not only authorized, but duty-bound, to apprehend the violator and to search him for anything that may have been part of or used in the commission of the crime.[21] | |||||
|
2011-06-15 |
PEREZ, J. |
||||
| In People v. Sembrano [34] citing People v. Agulay, [35] this Court held that a buy-bust operation is a form of entrapment which in recent years has been accepted as a valid and effective mode of apprehending drug pushers. If carried out with due regard for constitutional and legal safeguards, a buy-bust operation, as in this case, deserves judicial sanction. [36] Moreover, in a buy-bust operation, the violator is caught in flagrante delicto and the police officers conducting the same are not only authorized but also duty-bound to apprehend the violator and consequently search him for anything that may have been part of or used in the commission of the crime. [37] | |||||
|
2009-01-19 |
YNARES-SANTIAGO, J. |
||||
| With regard to the validity of his arrest, evidence shows that appellant was the subject of a buy-bust operation. In this jurisdiction, the conduct of a buy-bust operation is a common and accepted mode of apprehending those involved in illegal sale of prohibited or regulated drugs. It has been proven to be an effective way of unveiling the identities of drug dealers and of luring them out of obscurity.[20] It catches the violator in flagrante delicto and the police officers conducting the operation are not only authorized but duty-bound to apprehend the violator and to search him for anything that may have been part of or used in the commission of the crime.[21] | |||||
|
2008-07-28 |
CHICO-NAZARIO, J. |
||||
| The Court of Appeals was without error when it upheld the ruling of the RTC declaring valid the buy-bust operation conducted against defendant-appellant. Jurisprudence has established that a buy-bust operation is a form of entrapment,[54] in which the violator is caught in flagrante delicto and the police officers conducting the operation are not only authorized but duty-bound to apprehend the violator and to search him for anything that may have been part of or used in the commission of the crime.[55] | |||||
|
2008-07-09 |
QUISUMBING, J. |
||||
| We agree with the appellee. This Court has already ruled repeatedly that a buy-bust operation is a form of entrapment which has repeatedly been accepted to be a valid means of arresting violators of the Dangerous Drugs Law.[19] An arrest made after entrapment does not require a warrant inasmuch as it is considered a valid warrantless arrest pursuant to Rule 113, Section 5(a), of the Rules of Court.[20] | |||||