People vs.

John Fernandez
Violation: Illegal Delivery of Dangerous Drugs (Section 5 of R.A. No. 9165)

Prosecution:
Perez, investigator of the Anti-Carnapping Unit of Mandaluyong City Police
Station, said that on August 8, 2017 at about 9:00 am in the morning, one of their regular
confidential informants arrived at their office to inform about a certain “JJ”, a newly
identified drug peddler of Mandaluyong City. Buy bust operation was organized with four
operatives. Operation and arrest were conducted at Reverend Aglipay Street, Barangay
Pag-asa, Mandaluyong. The informant has positively identified JJ.
Perez, then handed the buy-bust money to the subject person and after that,
subject person handed him a plastic sachet containing a much larger size crystalline
substance suspected to be shabu. He then, gave his signal that the transaction has been
consummated.
PO1 Vargas and another operative immediately apprehended JJ. Upon frisking, as
part of the standard operation procedure, they were able to recover two (2) more sachets
of suspected shabu and the buy-bust money.
They proceeded to their office, booked the subject person, and also conducted
tactical interrogation.
They went to Barangay Pag-asa and performed marking of the confiscated
evidences and recount it using an Inventory Receipt Report.
They returned to their office and prepared proper referral to the crime laboratory for the
chemical testing of seized items.

Defense:
Jennifer Lee barangay tanod of at Barangay 888 Zone 88 San Roque Street Sta.
Ana Manila, appeared as witness to prove that there was no buy bust operation conducted
and that the police who responded was not PO3 Perez. On August 8, 2017 at around 8-9
o’clock, while she was walking on the way to South Star in front of Mc Donalds, she said
that she saw a man kneeling while being handcuffed and a police officer standing beside
him with no other person at the area. Jennifer positively identified the arrested person
named John Fernandez but the police officer who apprehended him is not present in the
court room.
Issue:
Whether or not the accused committed the crime of selling and illegal possession
of dangerous drugs.

Decision:

Yes. The accused committed the crime of selling and illegal possession of
dangerous drugs.
The present case presented is clearly a violation of the provisions of REPUBLIC
ACT NO. 9165. Any person, who, unless authorized by law, conducts selling, trading,
administering, dispensing, delivering, giving away to another, distributing dispatch in
transit or transport any dangerous drug shall be liable to Section 5 of R.A. No. 9165 (illegal
use, delivery, etc. of dangerous drugs). The accused, in coordination with an informant
has been formerly identified by the police and has already been suspect monitored for
validation. Under Section 11 of R.A. No. 9165 (illegal possession of dangerous drugs), any
quantity of drugs so long as possessed by any person not covered under exemptions of
Section 5 of R.A. No. 9165 (illegal use, delivery, etc. of dangerous drugs) could be
considered as a crime and is a punishable offense. The accused then being a suspect of
such crime merits observation and investigation.
The Police officers has properly conducted their buy-bust operation. Buy-bust
operation before being conducted needs sufficient preparation. It needs a sufficient
amount of time and resources in order to obtain clear and unquestionable evidences.
Police operation was conducted following the necessary procedures structured under
Section 21 of R.A. No. 9165, as amended by R.A. No. 10640. Operatives on the case had
on August 8, 2017 at about 9:00 am in the morning, one of their regular confidential
informants arrived at their office to inform about a certain “JJ”, a newly identified drug
peddler of Mandaluyong City. The buy-bust was conducted, the informant has properly
identified the accused, buy-bust money and “shabu” specimen were obtained, suspect was
further frisked, subject person was booked, tactical investigation was conducted,
evidences were properly marked, and proper referral of the evidences was made to the
crime lab.
The defense’s claim that the apprehension did not happen in front of 7/11 but
instead happened in front of Mc Donalds does not diminish the credibility of the facts and
evidences so far presented by the prosecution. Merely being able to witness the scenario
from afar is meritorious in itself but not being able to witness the event from the very
beginning of the procedure begs the question of veracity of witness’ claim. with the
unassailable amount of evidence presented by the prosecution vis-à-vis the evidence
presented by the defendant, we rule that the accused is guilty.