This case has been cited 3 times or more.
|
2012-11-26 |
DEL CASTILLO, J. |
||||
| A buy-bust operation has been proven to be an effective mode of apprehending drug pushers. In this regard, police authorities are given a wide latitude in employing their own ways of trapping or apprehending drug dealers in flagrante delicto. There is no prescribed method on how the operation is to be conducted. As ruled in People v. Garcia,[15] the absence of a prior surveillance or test-buy does not affect the legality of the buy-bust operation as there is no text-book method of conducting the same. As long as the constitutional rights of the suspected drug dealer are not violated, the regularity of the operation will always be upheld. Thus, in People v. Salazar,[16] we ruled that "[i]f carried out with due regard to constitutional and legal safeguards, buy-bust operation deserves judicial sanction." | |||||
|
2008-03-14 |
NACHURA, J. |
||||
| In the case at bench, petitioner is charged with illegal sale of a prohibited drug. A successful prosecution of this offense requires the concurrence of the following elements: (1) the identity of the buyer and the seller, the object of the sale, and the consideration; and (2) the delivery of the thing sold and the payment therefor.[31] To our mind, the documentary and object evidence submitted to the State Prosecutor, particularly the Joint Affidavit of Arrest, the 935.80 grams of shabu, and the buy-bust money sufficiently establish the existence of probable cause against petitioner for the crime charged. After all, a finding of probable cause needs only to rest on evidence showing that, more likely than not, a crime has been committed by the suspect.[32] Unless there is a clear and convincing evidence that the members of the buy-bust team were impelled by any improper motive, or were not properly performing their duties, their testimonies on the operation deserve full faith and credit.[33] | |||||