This case has been cited 6 times or more.
|
2013-03-06 |
VELASCO JR., J. |
||||
| The indispensability of SPO1 Pama testimony cannot be over-emphasized. He could have provided the link between the testimony of SPO1 Marinda and the tenor of the testimony of PS/Insp. Mariano, which the prosecution and appellant have already stipulated on. As the evidence on record stands, there is a considerable amount of time, a gaping hiatus as it were, in which the whereabouts of the illegal drugs were unaccounted for. This constitutes a clear but unexplained break in the chain of custody. Then too no one testified on how the specimen was handled and cared following the analysis. And of course no one was presented to prove that the specimen turned over for analysis, if that be the case, and eventually presented in court as exhibits were the same substance SPO1 Pama received from SPO1 Marinda. There are so many unanswered questions regarding the possibility of evidence tampering and the identity of evidence. These questions should be answered satisfactorily to determine whether the integrity and the evidentiary value of the seized substance have been compromised in any way. Else, the prosecution cannot plausibly maintain that it was able to prove the guilt of appellant beyond reasonable doubt.[42] Thus, the trial court should not have easily accorded the drugs presented in court much credibility. | |||||
|
2009-07-17 |
CARPIO MORALES, J. |
||||
| More. The request for forensic examination, together with the specimen, was delivered to the laboratory by a certain SPO4 D.R. Mercado (Mercado),[16] who was not part of the buy-bust team, at 11:15 in the morning of October 10, 2003, a day after the conduct of the alleged buy-bust operation. There is no showing, however, under what circumstances Mercado, who did not take the witness stand, came into possession of the specimen. Apropos is the Court's ruling in People v. Ong:[17] | |||||
|
2008-07-28 |
CHICO-NAZARIO, J. |
||||
| The Court of Appeals was without error when it upheld the ruling of the RTC declaring valid the buy-bust operation conducted against defendant-appellant. Jurisprudence has established that a buy-bust operation is a form of entrapment,[54] in which the violator is caught in flagrante delicto and the police officers conducting the operation are not only authorized but duty-bound to apprehend the violator and to search him for anything that may have been part of or used in the commission of the crime.[55] | |||||
|
2008-02-06 |
TINGA, J, |
||||
| In People v. Ong[30] and Cabugao v. People[31] where the "objective test" was also applied, chasmic deficiencies that similarly marked the prosecution evidence led to the absolution of the accused. In Ong, also involving Chinese nationals as accused, the prosecution evidence on the buy-bust operation was outrageously complete as the confidential informant who had sole knowledge of how the alleged illegal sale of shabu was initiated and how it was carried out was not presented as a witness.[32] In Cabugao, the prosecution witnesses could not agree on the reason that prompted them to conduct the buy-bust operation. While the first witness testified that the tip came from their informants, the second witness maintained that no informer was involved in the operation.[33] | |||||
|
2007-10-02 |
CHICO-NAZARIO, J. |
||||
| Q: You said, initially, why initially you planned the buy bust operation at the Aritao police station? A: Before we conducted the buy bust operation, Sir, we passed by at the area and we again rehearsed at another area, Sir, before we finally conducted the buy bust operation at the house of Marilyn Miranda, Sir. Q: Who actually conducted the buy bust operation? A: I, Sir, PO1 Vergara, PO3 Lapeña, the chief of police of Aritao and others, Sir, whom I cannot remember their names. Q: Around what time did you arrive at the house of Marilyn Miranda? A: Around 7:00 o'clock P.M., Sir. Q: So, what happened upon the arrival at the house of Marilyn Miranda? A: Upon arrival, Reynaldo Mazo who was then my companion introduced me to the suspect, Sir. Q: So, what happened? A: After he introduced me to the suspect, Mr. Mazo said that I need a drug particulary shabu, Sir. Q: Where did this introduction happened inside (sic) the house or inside the house? A: Inside the house, Sir. Q: So, what was the reaction, if any, of the suspect that accused Marilyn Miranda in this case when Mr. Mazo said you needed drug particularly shabu? A: I talked to Mr. Caoile, Sir. Q: Who talked to Mr. Caoile, Mr. witness? A: Marilyn Miranda, Sir. Q: How far were you from them when they talked? A: About 2 to 3 meters, Sir. Q: What did they talk about, if you know? A: Marilyn Miranda asked permission from Mr. Caoile, Sir. Q: What was Marilyn Miranda asking permission about? A: He asked permission to sell shabu from Mr. Caoile, Sir. Q: So, what was the result of that talk? A: Mr. Caoile permitted by saying, "ikkam a nu adda."[21] Q: What happened next? A: After that, Sir, Marilyn Miranda entered their room, Sir. Q: How far was that room from the place that you were situated? A: 3 to 4 meters, Sir. Q: What happened next? A: After that, Sir, Marilyn Miranda got something from [her] pocket and gave it to Mr. Mazo, Sir. Q: What was that something that Marilyn Miranda took from [her] pocket? A: A heat sealed plastic sachet containing white crystalline substance, Sir. Q: After [that] what happened next? A: Reynaldo Mazo in return gave the P500.00 which I gave him, Sir. Q: After [that] what happened next? A: Reynaldo Mazo gave the plastic heat sealed to me and when I notice that it was a suspected shabu, I gave the pre-arranged signal to my companions, Sir. Q: Where were your companions when this transaction happened? A: At the vicinity of the house of Marilyn Miranda, Sir. Q: After you gave the pre-arranged signal, what happened next? A: PO1 Vergara and the chief of police entered the house and identified themselves as police officers, Sir.[22] In our minds, PO1 Valenzuela's testimony was able to meet the requirement we laid down in People v. Ong,[23] in that, he was able 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 the sale.[24] His testimony revealed how their team came to know about appellant's drug trade; the manner of negotiation for the purchase of shabu among appellant, Mazo, and himself; the exchange of consideration between Mazo and appellant; and Mazo's handing over to him of the subject of the sale. | |||||
|
2004-07-30 |
PUNO, J. |
||||
| A: We have informants and assets that gave information with (sic) us, sir.[33] Just recently, in People vs. Ong,[34] we held that 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 subject of sale. Failing in this duty, the buy-bust operation will be greeted with furrowed brows. | |||||