Premium Content

You accessing premium content on FREE trial.

PEOPLE v. FLORENCIO DORIA Y BOLADO

This case has been cited 37 times or more.

2015-02-23
BERSAMIN, J.
In every prosecution for the illegal sale of dangerous drugs, the presentation of the drugs as evidence in court is material,[35] because the identity of the drugs seized should be established beyond any reasonable doubt. What is more, the fact that the substance bought during the buy-bust operation is the same substance offered in court should be proven. The preservation of the chain of custody of the drugs seized performs the function of ensuring that unnecessary doubts attending the identity of the evidence are removed.[36]
2014-08-18
DEL CASTILLO, J.
Appellant's insistence that the failure to present the poseur-buyer is fatal to the prosecution fails to impress.  "The relevant information acquired by the ['poseur-buyer'] was equally known to the police officers who gave evidence for the prosecution at the trial.  They all took part in the planning and implementation of the [buy-bust] operation, and all were direct witnesses to the actual sale of the [shabu, the appellant's] arrest immediately thereafter, and the recovery from [her] x x x of the marked money x x x.  The testimony of the [poseur-buyer] was not therefore indispensable or necessary; it would have been cumulative merely, or corroborative at best."[19]  His testimony can therefore be dispensed with since the illicit transaction was actually witnessed and adequately proved by the prosecution witnesses.[20]
2013-08-14
PEREZ, J.
The non-presentation of the confidential informant is not fatal to the prosecution. Informants are usually not presented in court because of the need to hide their identity and maintain their valuable service to the police.[6]
2013-04-03
BERSAMIN, J.
Given the high concern for the due recording of the authorized movements and custody of the seized drugs or controlled chemicals or plant sources of dangerous drugs or laboratory equipment, the presentation as evidence in court of the dangerous drugs subject of and recovered during the illegal sale is material in every prosecution for the illegal sale of dangerous drugs.[17] Without such dangerous drugs being presented as evidence, the State does not establish the corpus delicti, which, literally translated from Latin, refers to the body of the crime, or the actual commission by someone of the particular offense charged.[18] Corpus delicti, as the Court puts it in People v. Roluna,[19] is: xxx the body or substance of the crime and, in its primary sense, refers to the fact that a crime has been actually committed. As applied to a particular offense, it means the actual commission by someone of the particular crime charged. The corpus delicti is a compound fact made up of two (2) things, viz: the existence of a certain act or result forming the basis of the criminal charge, and the existence of a criminal agency as the cause of this act or result. [20]
2012-11-28
BERSAMIN, J.
Based on this statutory concern for the due recording of the authorized movement and custody of the seized drugs or controlled chemicals or plant sources of dangerous drugs or laboratory equipment, the presentation as evidence in court of the dangerous drugs subject of the illegal sale is material in every prosecution for the illegal sale of dangerous drugs.[23] To be sure, the dangerous drugs are themselves the corpus delicti, which, literally translated from Latin, refers to the body of the crime, or the actual commission by someone of the particular offense charged.[24]  Corpus delicti, as the Court puts it in People v. Roluna,[25] is: xxx the body or substance of the crime and, in its primary sense, refers to the fact that a crime has been actually committed. As applied to a particular offense, it means the actual commission by someone of the particular crime charged. The corpus delicti is a compound fact made up of two (2) things, viz: the existence of a certain act or result forming the basis of the criminal charge, and the existence of a criminal agency as the cause of this act or result. [26]
2012-11-26
BERSAMIN, J.
In every prosecution for the illegal sale of dangerous drugs, the presentation of the seized dangerous drugs as evidence in court is indispensable.[42] It is essential that the identity of the dangerous drugs be established beyond doubt. What is more, the fact that the dangerous drugs bought during the buy-bust operation are the same dangerous drugs offered in court should be established. The chain of custody requirement performs this function in that it ensures that unnecessary doubts concerning the identity of the evidence are removed.[43]
2012-01-18
LEONARDO-DE CASTRO, J.
In People v. Doria,[31] this Court laid down the objective test in evaluating buy-bust operations: We therefore stress that the "objective" test in buy-bust operations demands that the details of the purported transaction must be clearly and adequately shown.  This must start from the initial contact between the poseur-buyer and the pusher, the offer to purchase, the promise or payment of the consideration until the consummation of the sale by the delivery of the illegal drug subject of the sale.  The manner by which the initial contact was made, whether or not through an informant, the offer to purchase the drug, the payment of the "buy-bust" money, and the delivery of the illegal drug, whether to the informant alone or the police officer, must be the subject of strict scrutiny by courts to insure that law-abiding citizens are not unlawfully induced to commit an offense.  Criminals must be caught but not at all cost.  At the same time, however, examining the conduct of the police should not disable courts into ignoring the accused's predisposition to commit the crime.  If there is overwhelming evidence of habitual delinquency, recidivism or plain criminal proclivity, then this must also be considered.  Courts should look at all factors to determine the predisposition of an accused to commit an offense in so far as they are relevant to determine the validity of the defense of inducement.[32]
2011-11-23
LEONARDO-DE CASTRO, J.
Where the criminal intent originates in the mind of the instigating person and the accused is lured into the commission of the offense charged in order to prosecute him, there is instigation and no conviction may be had.  Where, however, the criminal intent originates in the mind of the accused and the criminal offense is completed, even after a person acted as a decoy for the state, or public officials furnished the accused an opportunity for the commission of the offense, or the accused was aided in the commission of the crime in order to secure the evidence necessary to prosecute him, there is no instigation and the accused must be convicted.  The law in fact tolerates the use of decoys and other artifices to catch a criminal.[24]
2011-06-08
VELASCO JR., J.
In People v. Doria,[19] the Court laid down the "objective test" in determining the credibility of prosecution witnesses regarding the conduct of buy-bust operations.  It is the duty of the prosecution to present a complete picture detailing the buy-bust operation--"from the initial contact between the poseur-buyer and the pusher, the offer to purchase, the promise or payment of the consideration until the consummation of the sale by the delivery of the illegal drug subject of sale."[20]  We said that "[t]he manner by which the initial contact was made, x x x the offer to purchase the drug, the payment of the `buy-bust money', and the delivery of the illegal drug x x x must be the subject of strict scrutiny by the courts to insure that law-abiding citizens are not unlawfully induced to commit an offense."[21]
2011-02-23
BRION, J.
To determine whether there is instigation or entrapment, we held in People v. Doria[31] that the conduct of the apprehending officers and the predisposition of the accused to commit the crime must be examined: [I]n buy-bust operations demands that the details of the purported transaction must be clearly and adequately shown. This must start from the initial contact between the poseur-buyer and the pusher, the offer to purchase, the promise or payment of the consideration until the consummation of the sale by the delivery of the illegal drug subject of the sale. The manner by which the initial contact was made, whether or not through an informant, the offer to purchase the drug, the payment of the "buy-bust" money, and the delivery of the illegal drug, whether to the informant alone or the police officer, must be the subject of strict scrutiny by courts to insure that law-abiding citizens are not unlawfully induced to commit an offense. Criminals must be caught but not at all cost. At the same time, however, examining the conduct of the police should not disable courts into ignoring the accused's predisposition to commit the crime. If there is overwhelming evidence of habitual delinquency, recidivism or plain criminal proclivity, then this must also be considered. Courts should look at all factors to determine the predisposition of an accused to commit an offense in so far as they are relevant to determine the validity of the defense of inducement.[32]
2011-01-26
PEREZ, J.
In People v. De Guzman[55] citing People v. Doria,[56] this Court took pain in discussing the "objective" test in buy-bust operations to determine the credibility of the testimony of the police officers involved in the operation: We therefore stress that the "objective" test in buy-bust operations demands that the details of the purported transaction must be clearly and adequately shown.  This must start from the initial contact between the poseur-buyer and the pusher, the offer to purchase, the promise or payment of the consideration until the consummation of the sale by the delivery of the illegal drug subject of the sale. The manner by which the initial contact was made, whether or not through an informant, the offer to purchase the drug, the payment of the "buy-bust" money, and the delivery of the illegal drug, whether to the informant alone or the police officer, must be the subject of strict scrutiny by courts to insure that law-abiding citizens are not unlawfully induced to commit an offense.  Criminals must be caught but not at all cost.  At the same time, however, examining the conduct of the police should not disable courts into ignoring the accused's predisposition to commit the crime.  If there is overwhelming evidence of habitual delinquency, recidivism or plain criminal proclivity, then this must also be considered.  Courts should look at all factors to determine the predisposition of an accused to commit an offense in so far as they are relevant to determine the validity of the defense of inducement.[57]
2011-01-26
VELASCO JR., J.
Indeed, in every prosecution for illegal sale of prohibited drugs, the presentation in evidence of the seized drug, as an integral part of the corpus delicti, is most material.[36] Thus, it is vital that the identity of the prohibited drug be proved with moral certainty.  The fact that the substance bought or seized during the buy-bust operation is the same item offered in court as exhibit must also be established with the same degree of certitude.[37]  It is in this respect that the chain of custody requirement performs its function.  It ensures that unnecessary doubts concerning the identity of the evidence are removed.[38]
2011-01-12
VELASCO JR., J.
Furthermore, accused-appellant's contention that the buy-bust team should have procured a search warrant for the validity of the buy-bust operation is misplaced. The Court had the occasion to address this issue in People v. Doria:[15]
2010-12-13
MENDOZA, J.
It has been held that personal knowledge of facts in arrests without warrant must be based upon probable cause, which means an actual belief or reasonable grounds of suspicion. The grounds of suspicion are reasonable when the suspicion, that the person to be arrested is probably guilty of committing an offense, is based on actual facts, that is, supported by circumstances sufficiently strong in themselves to create the probable cause of guilt of the person to be arrested. [20]
2010-06-16
NACHURA, J.
The grounds of suspicion are reasonable when, in the absence of actual belief of the arresting officers, the suspicion that the person to be arrested is probably guilty of committing the offense is based on actual facts, i.e., supported by circumstances sufficiently strong in themselves to create the probable cause of guilt of the person to be arrested. A reasonable suspicion therefore must be founded on probable cause, coupled with good faith on the part of the peace officers making the arrest.[20]
2010-04-23
VELASCO JR., J.
Further, it is worth noting that the chain of custody was also clearly established. In every prosecution for the illegal sale of prohibited drugs, the presentation of the drug, i.e., as part of the corpus delicti, as evidence in court is also material.[33] Corpus delicti is the body or substance of the crime, and establishes the fact that a crime has actually been committed.[34]
2010-03-03
VELASCO JR., J.
In order to determine the validity of a buy-bust operation, this Court has consistently applied the "objective" test. In People v. Doria,[13] this Court stressed that in applying the "objective" test, the details of the purported transaction during the buy-bust operation must be clearly and adequately shown, i.e., the initial contact between the poseur-buyer and the pusher, the offer to purchase, and the promise or payment of the consideration until the consummation of the sale by the delivery of the illegal drug subject of the sale. It further emphasized that the "manner by which the initial contact was made, whether or not through an informant, the offer to purchase the drug, the payment of the `buy-bust' money, and the delivery of the illegal drug, whether to the informant alone or the police officer, must be subject of strict scrutiny by courts to insure that law-abiding citizens are not unlawfully induced to commit an offense."[14]
2010-01-25
VELASCO JR., J.
Further, the chain of custody was clearly established by the prosecution. It is elementary that, in every prosecution for the illegal sale of prohibited drugs, the presentation of the drug as evidence in court is material.[16] It is, therefore, essential that the identity of the prohibited drug be established beyond doubt. What is more, the fact that the substance bought during the buy-bust operation is the same substance offered in court should be established. The chain of custody requirement performs this function in that it ensures that unnecessary doubts concerning the identity of the evidence are removed.[17]
2009-12-16
VELASCO JR., J.
We therefore stress that the "objective" test in buy-bust operations demands that the details of the purported transaction must be clearly and adequately shown. This must start from the initial contact between the poseur-buyer and the pusher, the offer to purchase, the promise or payment of the consideration until the consummation of the sale by the delivery of the illegal drug subject of the sale. The manner by which the initial contact was made, whether or not through an informant, the offer to purchase the drug, the payment of the "buy-bust" money, and the delivery of the illegal drug, whether to the informant alone or the police officer, must be the subject of strict scrutiny by courts to insure that law-abiding citizens are not unlawfully induced to commit an offense. Criminals must be caught but not at all cost. At the same time, however, examining the conduct of the police should not disable courts into ignoring the accused's predisposition to commit the crime. If there is overwhelming evidence of habitual delinquency, recidivism or plain criminal proclivity, then this must also be considered. Courts should look at all factors to determine the predisposition of an accused to commit an offense in so far as they are relevant to determine the validity of the defense of inducement.[13]
2009-11-27
ABAD, J.
The accused-appellants invoke the rule that a person may be arrested even without a warrant only a) if he is caught in the act of committing a crime, b) if he has just committed a crime and the arresting officer pursued him, or c) if he escaped from a legal confinement.[4] But in the first two instances, the officer must have personal knowledge of the facts underlying the arrest.The target person's observable acts must clearly spell a crime.If no crime is evident from those acts, no valid arrest can be made.An informant whispering to the police officer's ear that the person walking or standing on the street has committed or is committing a crime will not do. The arresting officer must himself perceive the manifestations of a crime.[5]
2009-09-17
VELASCO JR., J.
In every prosecution for the illegal sale of prohibited drugs, the presentation of the drug, i.e., the corpus delicti, as evidence in court is material.[21] In fact, the existence of the dangerous drug is crucial to a judgment of conviction. It is, therefore, indispensable that the identity of the prohibited drug be established beyond doubt. Even more than this, what must also be established is the fact that the substance bought during the buy-bust operation is the same substance offered in court as exhibit. The chain of custody requirement performs this function in that it ensures that unnecessary doubts concerning the identity of the evidence are removed.[22]
2009-07-23
VELASCO JR., J.
It is fairly clear that the concept of entrapment under the American criminal justice system bears a similarity to the concept of instigation or inducement under the Philippine judicial setting. Such that once the criminal intent arises from the police officers without any predisposition from the defendant to commit the crime, both jurisdictions consider the act as illegal. Entrapment in the Philippines is, however, not a defense available to the accused; instigation is, and is considered, an absolutory cause.[11]
2009-06-22
CHICO-NAZARIO, J.
The non-presentation of the confidential informant is not fatal to the prosecution. Informants are usually not presented in court because of the need to hide their identity and preserve their invaluable service to the police. It is well-settled that except when the petitioner vehemently denies selling prohibited drugs and there are material inconsistencies in the testimonies of the arresting officers, or there are reasons to believe that the arresting officers had motives to testify falsely against the petitioner, or that only the informant was the poseur-buyer who actually witnessed the entire transaction, the testimony of the informant may be dispensed with as it will merely be corroborative of the apprehending officers' eyewitness testimonies. There is no need to present the informant in court where the sale was actually witnessed and adequately proved by prosecution witnesses.[36] The testimony of an informant who witnessed the illegal sale of shabu is not essential for conviction and may be dispensed with if the poseur-buyer testified on the same, because the informant's testimony would merely corroborate that of the poseur-buyer.[37] What can be fatal is the nonâ€'presentation of the poseur-buyer, if there is no other eyewitness to the illicit transaction[38] -- not the nonâ€'presentation of the informant whose testimony under certain circumstances would be merely corroborative or cumulative.[39]
2009-02-06
CARPIO, J.
Moreover, when a person is apprehended in flagrante delicto, the police is not only authorized, but duty-bound, to arrest him even without a warrant.[19] Petitioner was caught in flagrante delicto when SPO1 Nepomuceno gave him the marked money in exchange for two sachets of shabu. Petitioner's arrest, as correctly found by the trial court and the appellate court, was valid and legal.
2008-12-08
CARPIO MORALES, J.
Objects falling in plain view of an officer who has a right to be in a position to have that view are subject to seizure even without a search warrant and may be introduced in evidence. The 'plain view' doctrine applies when the following requisites concur: (a) the law enforcement officer in search of the evidence has a prior justification for an intrusion or is in a position from which he can view a particular area; (b) the discovery of evidence in plain view is inadvertent; (c) it is immediately apparent to the officer that the item he observes may be evidence of a crime, contraband or otherwise subject to seizure. The law enforcement officer must lawfully make an initial intrusion or properly be in a position from which he can particularly view the area. In the course of such lawful intrusion, he came inadvertently across a piece of evidence incriminating the accused. The object must be open to eye and hand and its discovery inadvertent.[12] (Emphasis and underscoring supplied)
2008-09-03
CHICO-NAZARIO, J.
Section 5(a) provides that a peace officer or a private person may, without a warrant, arrest a person when, in his presence, the person to be arrested has committed, is actually committing, or is attempting to commit, an offense. Section 5(a) refers to arrest in flagrante delicto.[29] In flagrante delicto means caught in the act of committing a crime. This rule, which warrants the arrest of a person without warrant, requires that the person arrested has just committed a crime, or is committing it, or is about to commit an offense, in the presence or within view of the arresting officer.[30]
2008-06-17
CHICO-NAZARIO, J.
As here, the solicitation of drugs from appellant by the informant utilized by the police merely furnishes evidence of a course of conduct. The police received an intelligence report that appellant has been habitually dealing in illegal drugs. They duly acted on it by utilizing an informant to effect a drug transaction with appellant. There was no showing that the informant induced the appellant to sell illegal drugs to him.[22] Conversely, the law deplores instigation or inducement, which occurs when the police or its agent devises the idea of committing the crime and lures the accused into executing the offense. Instigation absolves the accused of any guilt, given the spontaneous moral revulsion from using the powers of government to beguile innocent but ductile persons into lapses that they might otherwise resist.[23]
2007-12-18
PUNO, CJ.
In the instant case, the police arrested accused-appellant in a buy-bust operation.  A buy-bust operation is one form of entrapment employed by peace officers as an effective way of apprehending a criminal in the act of the commission of an offense.[10] Entrapment has received judicial sanction when undertaken with due regard for constitutional and legal safeguards.[11]  Where the criminal intent originates in the mind of the accused and the criminal offense is completed, the fact that a person, acting as a decoy for the state, or that public officials furnished the accused an opportunity for commission of the offense, or that the accused is aided in the commission of the crime in order to secure the evidence necessary to prosecute him, there is permissible entrapment and the accused must be convicted.[12]  What the law forbids is the inducing of another to violate the law, the "seduction" of an otherwise innocent person into a criminal career.[13] Where the criminal intent originates in the mind of the state decoy, such as an undercover agent, and the accused is lured into the commission of the offense charged in order to prosecute him, there is instigation, as we call it in our jurisprudence, and no conviction may be had.[14] In instigation, the instigator practically induces the would-be accused into the commission of the offense and himself becomes a co-principal.  In entrapment, the peace officer resorts to ways and means to trap and capture the lawbreaker in the execution of the latter's  criminal plan. Instigation is illegal and contrary to public policy.  Entrapment is not.[15]
2007-02-23
GARCIA, J.
The right of the petitioner to confront the witnesses against her is not affected by the failure of the prosecution to present the informant. The matter of presentation of witnesses is not for accused nor even for the trial court to decide.  Discretion belongs to the prosecutor as to how the State should present its case.  The prosecutor has the right to choose whom he would present as witnesses. Moreover, in illegal drugs cases, the presentation of an informant is not essential for conviction nor is it indispensable for a successful prosecution because his testimony would be merely corroborative and cumulative.  Informants are usually not presented in court because of the need to hide their identity and preserve their invaluable service to the police.   It is well-settled that except when the accused vehemently denies selling prohibited drugs and there are material inconsistencies in the testimonies of the arresting officers, or there are reasons to believe that the arresting officers had motives to falsely testify against the accused, or that only the informant was the poseur-buyer who actually witnessed the entire transaction, the testimony of the informant may be dispensed with as it will merely be corroborative of the apprehending officers' eyewitness accounts.[7]
2006-09-27
GARCIA, J.
A buy bust operation is a form of entrapment that is resorted to for trapping and capturing felons in the execution of their criminal plan. The operation is sanctioned by law and has consistently proved to be an effective method of apprehending drug peddlers. Unless there is a clear and convincing evidence that the members of the buy-bust team were inspired by any improper motive or were not properly performing their duty, their testimonies on the operation deserve full faith and credit. In another case,[16] in upholding the constitutionality and legality of "buy-bust" operation, the Court even adopted a test to determine the authenticity thereof. Partly says the Court in that case:We therefore stress that the "objective" test in buy-bust operations demands that the details of the purported transaction must be clearly and adequately shown. This must start from the initial contact between the poseur-buyer and the pusher, the offer to purchase, the promise or payment of the consideration until the consummation of the sale by the delivery of the illegal drug subject of the sale. The manner by which the initial contact was made, whether or not through an informant, the offer to purchase the drug, the payment of the "buy-bust" money, and the delivery of the illegal drug, whether to the informant alone or the police officer, must be the subject of strict scrutiny by courts to insure that law abiding citizens are not unlawfully induced to commit an offense. Criminals must be caught but not at all cost. At the same time, however, examining the conduct of the police should not disable courts into ignoring the accused's predisposition to commit the crime. If there is overwhelming evidence of habitual delinquency, recidivism or plain criminal proclivity, then this must also be considered. Courts should look at all factors to determine the predisposition of an accused to commit an offense in so far as they are relevant to determine the validity of the defense of inducement. Appellant would advance an extra-constitutional exclusionary regime against such operation. The proferred course of conduct is obviously unacceptable. As correctly pointed out by the People in its brief before the CA, the price that must have to be paid for the adoption of appellant's proposition is the unnecessary and dangerous exposure of government confidential agents and informants in its crusade to ferret out the menace and proliferation of drug abuse. Living in the fringes of the underworld, these police "assets" may well be unwilling to expose themselves to possible liquidation attempts by drug lords and their allies should their identities be revealed much too often by repeated appearances in court to testify against drug dealers, pushers or users. Against such needless hamperings of the government's battle against illegal drugs, appellant has failed to demonstrate a clear showing of a constitutional right that should justify the novel extraordinary restriction he proposes.[17] A "buy-bust" operation has proven itself to be an effective mode of apprehending drug pushers. This is not to say, however, that an end can justify the means. If carried out with due regard to constitutional and legal safeguards, a "buy-bust" operation deserves judicial sanction.[18] The delivery of the prohibited drugs to the disguised poseur-buyer and the receipt by the seller of the marked money consummate the buy-bust transaction between the entrapping police officers and the drug dealers.[19]
2004-04-14
PANGANIBAN, J.
Well-established is the rule that the presentation of a confidential informant in a buy-bust operation is not always required,[43] especially when the sale was actually witnessed and adequately proved by other prosecution witnesses.[44] This rule admits of exceptions, however, as when the appellant vehemently denies selling prohibited drugs; and when there are material inconsistencies in the testimonies of the arresting officers.[45]
2004-03-15
CARPIO MORALES, J.
poseur-buyer and the pusher.[21] Moreover, Article II, Section 4 of Rep. Act No. 6425 punishes not only the sale but also the mere act of delivery of prohibited drugs after the offer to buy by the entrapping officer has been accepted by the seller of prohibited drugs.22]
2003-08-07
YNARES-SANTIAGO, J.
So also, admissibility of the items seized cannot be justified under the plain view doctrine. It is true that, as an exception, the police officer may seize without warrant illegally possessed firearm, or any contraband for that matter, inadvertently found in plain view. However, said officer must have a prior right to be in the position to have that view of the objects to be seized. The "plain view" doctrine applies when the following requisites concur: (a) the law enforcement officer in search of the evidence has a prior justification for an intrusion or is in a position from which he can view a particular area; (b) the discovery of the evidence in plain view is inadvertent; (c) it is immediately apparent to the officer that the item he observes may be evidence of a crime, contraband or otherwise subject to seizure. The law enforcement officer must lawfully make an initial intrusion or properly be in a position from which he can particularly view the area. In the course of such lawful intrusion, he came inadvertently across a piece of evidence incriminating the accused. The object must be open to eye and hand and its discovery inadvertent.[35]
2003-03-26
YNARES-SANTIAGO, J.
A search may be conducted by law enforcers only on the strength of a warrant validly issued by a judge as provided in Article III, Section 2 of the Constitution.[14] Articles which are the product of unreasonable searches and seizures are inadmissible as evidence, pursuant to Article III, Section 3 (2) of the Constitution.[15] Warrantless searches and seizures may be made without a warrant in the following instances: (1) search incident to a lawful arrest, (2) search of a moving motor vehicle, (3) search in violation of custom laws, (4) seizure of the evidence in plain view, (5) when the accused himself waives his right against unreasonable searches and seizures,[16] (6) stop and frisk[17] and (7) exigent and emergency circumstances.[18] These instances, however do not dispense with the requisite of probable cause before a warrantless search and seizure can be lawfully conducted. In warrantless search cases, probable cause must only be based on reasonable ground of suspicion or belief that a crime has been committed or is about to be committed.[19]
2001-08-23
QUISUMBING, J.
Finally, appellants insist that evidence obtained during their arrest is inadmissible as evidence. While we carefully considered this point, here we must reiterate that a buy-bust operation is a form of entrapment legally employed by peace officers as an effective way of apprehending drug dealers in the act of committing an offense. Such police operation has judicial sanction as long as it is carried out with due regard to constitutional and legal safeguards.[60] Here, the arrest of appellants has been shown to be within the confines of law, hence we find the contraband seized from appellants admissible in evidence.
2001-02-19
YNARES-SANTIAGO, J.
The foregoing constitutional proscription, however, is not without exceptions. Search and seizure may be made without a warrant and the evidence obtained therefrom may be admissible in the following instances: (1) search incident to a lawful arrest; (2) search of a moving motor vehicle; (3) search in violation of customs laws; (4) seizure of evidence in plain view; (5) when the accused himself waives his right against unreasonable searches and seizures;[24] and (6) stop and frisk situations (Terry search).[25]