This case has been cited 6 times or more.
|
2014-03-05 |
PEREZ, J. |
||||
| Jerry was arrested during a buy-bust operation conducted on 24 July 2002 by the members of the DEU of the Taguig PNP. A buy-bust operation is a form of entrapment employed by peace officers to apprehend prohibited drug law violators in the act of committing a drug-related offense.[13] We agree with the appellate court when it opined that: x x x [T]here is no rigid or textbook method of conducting buy-bust operations. The choice of effective ways to apprehend drug dealers is within the ambit of police authority. Police officers have the expertise to determine which specific approaches are necessary to enforce their entrapment operations.[14] | |||||
|
2013-06-13 |
SERENO, C.J. |
||||
| At the outset, buy-bust operations are legally sanctioned procedures for apprehending drug peddlers and distributors. These operations are often utilized by law enforcers for the purpose of trapping and capturing lawbreakers in the execution of their nefarious activities.[27] 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 committing an offense,[28] and must be undertaken with due regard for constitutional and legal safeguards.[29] | |||||
|
2009-12-16 |
VELASCO JR., J. |
||||
| 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 the 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. What the law forbids is the inducing of another to violate the law, the "seduction" of an otherwise innocent person into a criminal career. In instigation, the instigator practically induces the would-be accused into the commission of the offense and himself becomes a co-principal, while 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.[18] | |||||
|
2009-02-25 |
BRION, J. |
||||
| A buy-bust operation gave rise to the present case. While this kind of operation has been proven to be an effective way to flush out illegal transactions that are otherwise conducted covertly and in secrecy,[21] a buy-bust operation has a significant downside that has not escaped the attention of the framers of the law. It is susceptible to police abuse, the most notorious of which is its use as a tool for extortion. In People v. Tan,[22] this Court itself recognized that "by the very nature of anti-narcotics operations, the need for entrapment procedures, the use of shady characters as informants, the ease with which sticks of marijuana or grams of heroin can be planted in pockets of or hands of unsuspecting provincial hicks, and the secrecy that inevitably shrouds all drug deals, the possibility of abuse is great. Thus, courts have been exhorted to be extra vigilant in trying drug cases lest an innocent person is made to suffer the unusually severe penalties for drug offenses." Accordingly, specific procedures relating to the seizure and custody of drugs have been laid down in the law (R.A. No. 9165) for the police to strictly follow. The prosecution must adduce evidence that these procedures have been followed in proving the elements of the defined offense. | |||||
|
2009-02-10 |
CHICO-NAZARIO, J. |
||||
| The prosecution clearly showed that the sale of shabu actually took place. Accused-appellant was caught in flagrante delicto, selling shabu through a buy-bust operation, which is a form of entrapment employed by peace officers as an effective way of apprehending a criminal in the act of the commission of an offense.[32] | |||||
|
2008-10-15 |
BRION, J. |
||||
| A buy-bust operation is a form of entrapment employed by peace officers to apprehend prohibited drug law violators in the act of committing a drug-related offense.[20] Because of the built-in danger for abuse that a buy-bust operation carries, it is governed by specific procedures on the seizure and custody of drugs, separately from the general law procedures geared to ensure that the rights of people under criminal investigation[21] and of the accused facing a criminal charge[22] are safeguarded. We expressed this concern in People v. Tan,[23] when we recognized that "by the very nature of anti-narcotic operations, the need for entrapment procedures, the use of shady characters as informants, the ease with which sticks of marijuana or grams of heroin can be planted in the pockets or hands of unsuspecting provincial hicks, and the secrecy that inevitably shrouds all drug deals, the possibility of abuse is great. Thus, the courts have been exhorted to be extra vigilant in trying drug cases lest an innocent person is made to suffer the unusually severe penalties for drug offenses." | |||||