This case has been cited 2 times or more.
|
2016-01-11 |
DEL CASTILLO, J. |
||||
| We held in People v. Abedin[16] that coordination with the PDEA is not an indispensable requirement before police authorities may carry out a buy-bust operation; that in fact, even the absence of coordination with the PDEA will not invalidate a buy-bust operation.[17] Neither is the presentation of the informant indispensable to the success in prosecuting drug-related cases.[18] Informers are almost always never presented in court because of the need to preserve their invaluable service to the police. Unless their testimony is absolutely essential to the conviction of the accused, their testimony may be dispensed with since their narrations would be merely corroborative to the testimonies of the buy-bust team. | |||||
|
2014-07-23 |
PEREZ, J. |
||||
| The prosecution was able to preserve the integrity and evidentiary value of the said illegal drugs. The concurrence of all elements of the illegal sale of shabu was proven by the prosecution. Moreover, the rule is that inconsistencies in the testimony of witnesses, when referring only to minor details and collateral matters, do not affect either the substance of their declaration, their veracity, or the weight of their testimony. Such minor inconsistencies even enhance their veracity as the variances erase any suspicion of a rehearsed testimony.[17] | |||||