This case has been cited 1 times or more.
|
2006-11-27 |
TINGA, J. |
||||
| Appellant belabors the failure of the police officers to conduct surveillance prior to the operation. No surveillance of the area or the subject of the entrapment is necessary where the police officers have a reasonable ground to believe that the informer and the information given were reliable, and that a crime is indeed being perpetrated. The buy-bust operation is formed by the police officers precisely to test the veracity of the tip and in order to apprehend the perpetrator, if he in fact commits the offense, before he further endangers society. It is congruent to the very characteristic of prohibited drugs i.e., their being easily concealed and transferred without threat of detection in small and handy quantities, allows its sale, use and delivery with relative facility.[44] | |||||