This case has been cited 2 times or more.
|
2014-09-24 |
PEREZ, J. |
||||
| Similarly, one of the means used by the Court in determining the credibility of the prosecution witnesses is the objective test. Following this test, in order to establish the credibility of prosecution witnesses regarding the conduct of buy-bust operation, prosecution must be 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 subject of sale. The manner by which the initial contact was made, the offer to purchase the drug, the payment of the buy-bust money, and the delivery of the illegal drug must be the subject of strict scrutiny by courts to insure that law-abiding citizens are not unlawfully induced to commit an offense.[39] In light of these guiding principles, we rule that the prosecution failed to present a clear picture on what really transpired on the buy-bust operation. | |||||
|
2014-02-12 |
ABAD, J. |
||||
| Of course, the Court has ruled that immediate marking could be made at the nearest police station or office of the apprehending team.[14] Here, however, the evidence is unclear as to where the responsible police officer marked the seized substance and whether it was done in Merlita's presence. In fact, it is also not clear from the evidence which police officer did the marking since PO2 Mallari and PO2 Flores gave conflicting testimonies on this point.[15] This uncertainty concerning a vital element of the crime warrants overturning the judgment of conviction.[16] | |||||