100%(1)Il 100% ha trovato utile questo documento (1 voto)
125 visualizzazioni7 pagine
Buy-bust operations are legally sanctioned procedures used by law enforcement to apprehend drug dealers. However, they carry a significant risk of abuse by police and can target innocent people. Strict procedural safeguards are established by law to preserve the integrity and evidentiary value of seized drugs. The prosecution must prove these procedures were followed and present the seized drugs in court. If they fail to do so, then the presumption of innocence prevails.
Buy-bust operations are legally sanctioned procedures used by law enforcement to apprehend drug dealers. However, they carry a significant risk of abuse by police and can target innocent people. Strict procedural safeguards are established by law to preserve the integrity and evidentiary value of seized drugs. The prosecution must prove these procedures were followed and present the seized drugs in court. If they fail to do so, then the presumption of innocence prevails.
Buy-bust operations are legally sanctioned procedures used by law enforcement to apprehend drug dealers. However, they carry a significant risk of abuse by police and can target innocent people. Strict procedural safeguards are established by law to preserve the integrity and evidentiary value of seized drugs. The prosecution must prove these procedures were followed and present the seized drugs in court. If they fail to do so, then the presumption of innocence prevails.
Buy-bust operations are legally sanctioned procedures, provided
they are undertaken with due regard for constitutional and legal safeguards. 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 busy-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, 28and must be undertaken with due regard for constitutional and legal safeguards.29 However, as we have observed in People v. Garcia, 30 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, it 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. Thus, in People v. Tan,31 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. Jurisprudence has consistently held that the procedural safeguards enunciated in Section 21 of R.A. 9165 must be strictly observed, among which are provided as follows: Section 21. Custody and Disposition of Confiscated, Seized, and/or Surrendered Dangerous Drugs, Plant Sources of Dangerous Drugs, Controlled Precursors and Essential Chemicals, Instruments/Paraphernalia and/or Laboratory Equipment. The PDEA shall take charge and have custody of all dangerous drugs, plant sources of dangerous drugs, controlled precursors and essential chemicals, as well as instruments/paraphernalia and/or laboratory equipment so confiscated, seized and/or surrendered, for proper disposition in the following manner: (1) The apprehending team having initial custody and control of the drugs shall, immediately after seizure and confiscation,
physically inventory and photograph the same in the presence
of the accused or the person/s from whom such items were confiscated and/or seized, or his/her representative or counsel, a representative from the media and the Department of Justice (DOJ), and any elected public official who shall be required to sign the copies of the inventory and be given a copy thereof; (2) Within twenty-four (24) hours upon confiscation/seizure of dangerous drugs, plant sources of dangerous drugs, controlled precursors and essential chemicals, as well as instruments/paraphernalia and/or laboratory equipment, the same shall be submitted to the PDEA Forensic Laboratory for a qualitative and quantitative examination; xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx Every criminal case starts with the constitutionally-protected presumption of innocence in favor of the accused that can only be defeated by proof beyond reasonable doubt. The prosecution starts the trial process by presenting evidence showing the presence of all the elements of the offense charged. If the prosecution proves all the required elements, the burden of evidence shifts to the accused to disprove the prosecutions case. Based on these presentations, the court must then determine if the guilt of the accused has been proven beyond reasonable doubt. It may happen though that the prosecution, even before the presentation by the defense, already has failed to prove all the elements of the crime charged, in which case, the presumption of innocence prevails; the burden of evidence does not shift to the accused, who no longer needs to present evidence in his defense. In a prosecution for the illegal sale of a prohibited drug, the prosecution must prove the following elements: (1) the identity of the buyer and the seller, the object, and the consideration; and (2) the delivery of the thing sold and the payment therefor. All these require evidence that the sale transaction transpired, coupled with the presentation in court of the corpus delicti, i.e., the body or substance of the crime that establishes that a crime has actually been committed,20 as shown by presenting the object of the illegal transaction. In the present case, the object is marijuana which the prosecution must present and prove in court to be the same item
seized from the accused. It is in this respect that the prosecution
failed. Xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx In People v. Sanchez,34 we held that in case of warrantless seizure (such as a buy-bust operation) under R.A. No. 9165, the physical inventory and photograph of the items shall be made by the buybust team, if practicable, at the place they were seized, considering that such interpretation is more in keeping with the laws intent of preserving the integrity and evidentiary value of the seized drugs. The prosecution, in the present case, failed to explain why the required inventory and photographing of the seized items were not practicable and could not have been done at the place of seizure. ------------------------------------------------------------In a prosecution for the illegal sale of a prohibited drug, the prosecution must prove the following elements: (1) the identity of the buyer and the seller, the object, and the consideration; and (2) the delivery of the thing sold and the payment therefor. All these require evidence that the sale transaction transpired, coupled with the presentation in court of the corpus delicti, i.e., the body or substance of the crime that establishes that a crime has actually been committed,20 as shown by presenting the object of the illegal transaction. In the present case, the object is marijuana which the prosecution must present and prove in court to be the same item seized from the accused. It is in this respect that the prosecution failed. The requirements of paragraph 1, Section 21 of Article II of R.A. No. 9165. 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. The first procedural safeguard that the police failed to observe (and which both the RTC and the CA failed to take into account) is that provided under paragraph 1, Section 21, Article II of R.A. No. 9165. This provision states: 1) The apprehending team having initial custody and control of the drugs shall, immediately after seizure and confiscation, physically inventory and photograph the same in the presence of the accused or the person/s from whom such items were confiscated and/or seized, or his/her representative or counsel, a representative from the media and the Department of Justice (DOJ), and any elected public official who shall be required to sign the copies of the inventory and be given a copy thereof. [Emphasis supplied.] The Implementing Rules and Regulations of R.A. No. 9165 further elaborate on the legal requirement by providing, under its Section 21(a), that: (a) The apprehending office/team having initial custody and control of the drugs shall, immediately after seizure and confiscation, physically inventory and photograph the same in the presence of the accused or the person/s from whom such items were confiscated and/or seized, or his/her representative or counsel, a representative from the media and the Department of Justice (DOJ), and any elected public official who shall be required to sign the copies of the inventory and be given a copy thereof: Provided, further that non-compliance with these requirements under justifiable grounds, as long as the integrity and the evidentiary value of the seized items are properly preserved by the
apprehending officer/team, shall not render void and invalid such
seizures of and custody over said items.[Emphasis supplied.] G.R. No. 173480 --------------------------------------------------------Elements for the Prosecution of Illegal Sale and Possession of Shabu. In every prosecution for the illegal sale of shabu, under Section 5, Article II of RA 9165, the following elements must be proved: "(1) the identity of the buyer and the seller, the object and the consideration; and (2) the delivery of the thing sold and the payment therefor. x x x What is material in a prosecution for illegal sale of dangerous drugs is the proof that the transaction or sale actually took place, coupled with the presentation in court of the corpus delicti"17 or the illicit drug in evidence. On the other hand, in prosecuting a case for illegal possession of dangerous drugs under Section 11, Article II of the same law, the following elements must concur: "(1) the accused is in possession of an item or object, which is identified as a prohibited drug; (2) such possession is not authorized by law; and (3) the accused freely and consciously possessed the drug.18 Failure to Physically Inventory and Photograph the Shabu After Seizure and Confiscation is Not Fatal. Appellant draws attention to the failure of the apprehending police officers to comply with Section 21(a), Article II of the Implementing Rules and Regulations of RA 9165 regarding the physical inventory and photograph of the seized items. This provision reads as follows: (1) The apprehending officer/team having initial custody and control of the drugs shall, immediately after seizure and confiscation, physically inventory and photograph the same in the presence of the accused or the person/s from whom such items were confiscated and/or seized, or his/her representative or counsel, a representative from the media and the Department of Justice (DOJ), and any elected public official who shall be required to sign the copies of the inventory and be given a copy thereof; Provided, that the physical inventory and photograph shall
be conducted at the place where the search warrant is served; or at
the nearest police station or at the nearest office of the apprehending officer/team, whichever is practicable, in case of warrantless seizures; Provided further, that non-compliance with these requirements under justifiable grounds, as long as the integrity and the evidentiary value of the seized items are properly preserved by the apprehending officer/team, shall not render void and invalid such seizures of and custody over said items. In other words, the failure of the prosecution to show that the police officers conducted the required physical inventory and take photograph of the objects confiscated does not ipso facto render inadmissible in evidence the items seized. There is a proviso in the implementing rules stating that when it is shown that there exist justifiable grounds and proof that the integrity and evidentiary value of the evidence have been preserved, the seized items can still be used in determining the guilt or innocence of the accused. 21 G.R. No. 189840
December 11, 2013
------------------------------------------------The defenses of denial and frame-up
are unavailing. The Court cannot convince itself to reverse the finding of facts of the lower courts on the basis of appellants self-serving allegations of denial and extortion/frame-up. Denial cannot prevail against the positive testimony of a prosecution witness. "A defense of denial which is unsupported and unsubstantiated by clear and convincing evidence becomes negative and self-serving, deserving no weight in law, and cannot be given greater evidentiary value over convincing, straightforward and probable testimony on affirmative matters."28 Appellant cannot likewise avail of the defense of frame-up which "is viewed with disfavor since, like alibi, it can easily be concocted and is a common ploy in most prosecutions for violations of the Dangerous Drugs Law." 29 To substantiate this defense, the evidence must be clear and convincing and should show that the buy-bust team was inspired by improper motive or was not properly performing its duty.30 Here, there is no evidence that there was ill motive on the part of the buy-bust team. In fact, appellant himself admitted that he did not know the police officers prior to his arrest. There could therefore be no bad blood between him and the said police officers. Moreover, there was no proof that the arresting officers improperly performed their duty in arresting appellant and Parcon.