This case has been cited 1 times or more.
|
2011-12-14 |
LEONARDO-DE CASTRO, J. |
||||
| This point need not be belabored as this Court, has time and again, held that "the presentation of an informant in an illegal drugs case is not essential for the conviction nor is it indispensable for a successful prosecution because his testimony would be merely corroborative and cumulative."[30] If Amansec felt that the prosecution did not present the informant because he would testify against it, then Amansec himself should have called him to the stand to testify for the defense.[31] The informant's testimony is not needed if the sale of the illegal drug has been adequately proven by the prosecution.[32] In People v. Ho Chua,[33] we said: The presentation of an informant is not a requisite in the prosecution of drug cases. In People v. Nicolas, the Court ruled that "[p]olice authorities rarely, if ever, remove the cloak of confidentiality with which they surround their poseur-buyers and informers since their usefulness will be over the moment they are presented in court. Moreover, drug dealers do not look kindly upon squealers and informants. It is understandable why, as much as permitted, their identities are kept secret." In any event, the testimony of the informant would be merely corroborative.[34] | |||||