This case has been cited 7 times or more.
|
2012-04-11 |
VILLARAMA, JR., J. |
||||
| Neither is the lack of prior surveillance fatal. It must be stressed that prior surveillance is not a prerequisite for the validity of an entrapment operation. This issue in the prosecution of illegal drugs cases, again, has long been settled by this Court. We have been consistent in our ruling that prior surveillance is not required for a valid buy-bust operation, especially if the buy-bust team is accompanied to the target area by their informant.[34] | |||||
|
2011-12-14 |
LEONARDO-DE CASTRO, J. |
||||
| This issue in the prosecution of illegal drugs cases, again, has long been settled by this Court. We have been consistent in our ruling that prior surveillance is not required for a valid buy-bust operation, especially if the buy-bust team is accompanied to the target area by their informant.[35] In People v. Eugenio,[36] we held: There is no requirement that prior surveillance should be conducted before a buy-bust operation can be undertaken especially when, as in this case, the policemen are accompanied to the scene by their civilian informant. Prior surveillance is not a prerequisite for the validity of an entrapment or a buy-bust operation, there being no fixed or textbook method for conducting one. We have held that when time is of [the] essence, the police may dispense with the need for prior surveillance.[37] | |||||
|
2011-11-23 |
LEONARDO-DE CASTRO, J. |
||||
| This Court has many times discussed the dispensability of prior surveillance in buy-bust operations, as it is not a pre-requisite for the validity of an entrapment or such buy-bust operation. In People v. Eugenio,[37] we held that the conduct of surveillance prior to a buy-bust operation is not required especially when the police officers are accompanied to the scene by their civilian informant. This is so because there is no rigid or textbook method in conducting buy-bust operations. Flexibility is a trait of good police work, and the need for prior surveillance may be dispensed with when time is of the essence.[38] In People v. Gonzales,[39] we said: The Court has left to the discretion of police authorities the selection of effective means to apprehend drug dealers. Thus, we have refused to establish on a priori basis what detailed acts the police authorities might credibly undertake in their entrapment operations.[40] | |||||
|
2010-07-21 |
LEONARDO-DE CASTRO, J. |
||||
| A prior surveillance is not a prerequisite for the validity of an entrapment or buy-bust operation, the conduct of which has no rigid or textbook method. Flexibility is a trait of good police work. However the police carry out its entrapment operations, for as long as the rights of the accused have not been violated in the process, the courts will not pass on the wisdom thereof.[33] The police officers may decide that time is of the essence and dispense with the need for prior surveillance.[34] | |||||
|
2009-02-06 |
CARPIO, J. |
||||
| The failure of the poseur-buyer to testify on the actual purchase is not fatal to the prosecution's cause.[10] SPO1 Nepomuceno, the poseur-buyer, was already assigned in Iloilo City, Region VIII, when the cases were being tried. However, SPO1 Saddoy and PO1 Cruz saw the illicit transaction as both of them positioned themselves at the barber shop opposite the Dunkin' Donuts establishment.[11] PO1 Cruz witnessed the whole transaction where the marked money was exchanged for two sachets of shabu. He was positioned at Reparo Street where he saw the exchange of shabu and the marked money along Reparo Street.[12] SPO1 Saddoy, on the other hand, was the one who recovered the marked money from petitioner.[13] As long as there is proof that the sale actually took place, coupled with the presentation in court of the corpus delicti as evidence, a conviction for illegal sale of shabu can be sustained.[14] | |||||
|
2007-08-08 |
CARPIO MORALES, J. |
||||
| On appellant's claim that the bricks of marijuana were planted, the Court is unconvinced. Frame-up is a defense that has been invariably viewed with disfavor, it being easily concocted and is a common standard defense ploy in most prosecutions for violation of the Dangerous Drugs Act.[21] Absent clear and convincing evidence of a frame-up, as in the present case, it must be rejected.[22] | |||||
|
2004-05-25 |
VITUG, J. |
||||
| Appellant's argument that a surveillance or a test buy should have first been conducted deserves scant consideration. In a prosecution for illegal possession of dangerous drugs, it is enough to show that - (1) the accused is in possession of an item or an object identified to be a prohibited or a regulated drug; (2) such possession is not authorized by law; and (3) the accused has freely and consciously possessed the prohibited drug.[11] Neither a prior surveillance of the suspected offender[12] nor the presentation of the informant would be an indispensable requirement to the successful prosecution of a drug case.[13] | |||||