This case has been cited 2 times or more.
|
2008-04-10 |
TINGA, J, |
||||
| Prescinding from the above argument, appellant insists that the asset should have been presented in court. He invoked the court ruling in People v. Libag,[23] wherein the non-presentation of the informant was fatal to the case of the prosecution. Libag cannot find application in this case. In that case, the crime charged was the sale of shabu where the informant himself was a poseur-buyer and a witness to the transaction. His testimony as a poseur-buyer was indispensable because it could have helped the trial court in determining whether or not the appellant had knowledge that the bag contained marijuana, such knowledge being an essential ingredient of the offense for which he was convicted.[24] In this case, however, the asset was not present in the police operation. The rule is that the presentation of an informant in an illegal drugs case is not essential for conviction nor is it indispensable for a successful prosecution because his testimony would merely be corroborative and cumulative. Informants are generally not presented in court because of the need to hide their identity and preserve their invaluable service to the police.[25] | |||||
|
2007-08-24 |
CARPIO MORALES, J. |
||||
| The prosecution having failed to discharge the onus of establishing prima facie appellant's guilt beyond reasonable doubt,[11] the defense did not even have to present evidence, the burden of the evidence not having shifted to it. The acquittal of the appellant is thus in order. | |||||