BUY-BUST OPERATION A buy-bust operation is a form of entrapment, which in recent years has been accepted as valid and effective

mode of arresting violators of the Dangerous Drugs Law. It has been proven to be an effective way of unveiling the identities of drug dealers and of luring them out of obscurity. To determine whether there was a valid entrapment or whether proper procedures were undertaken in effecting the buy-bust operation, it is incumbent upon the courts to make sure that the details of the operation are clearly and adequately established through relevant, material and competent evidence. The courts cannot merely rely on, but must apply with studied restraint, the presumption of regularity in the performance of official duty by law enforcement agents. Courts are duty-bound to exercise extra vigilance in trying drug cases and should not allow themselves to be used as instruments of abuse and injustice lest innocent persons are made to suffer the unusually severe penalties for drug offenses. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES vs. GARET SALCENA Y VICTORINO, G.R. No. 192261, 16 November 2011 A buy-bust operation is a form of entrapment which in recent years has been accepted as a valid means of arresting violators of the Dangerous Drugs Law. It is commonly employed by police officers as an effective way of apprehending law offenders in the act of committing a crime. In a buy-bust operation, the idea to commit a crime originates from the offender, without anybody inducing or prodding him to commit the offense. Its opposite is instigation or inducement, wherein the police or its agent lures the accused into committing the offense in order to prosecute him. Instigation is deemed contrary to public policy and considered an absolutory cause. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES vs. NENITA LEGASPI Y LUCAS, G.R. No. 173485, 23 November 2011 A buy-bust operation is far variant from an ordinary arrest; it is a form of entrapment which has repeatedly been accepted to be a valid means of arresting violators of the Dangerous Drugs Law. In a buy-bust operation, 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. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES vs. GREGG C. BUENAVENTURA, G.R. No. 184807, 23 November 2011

CHAIN OF CUSTODY

Owing to the built-in dangers of abuse that a buy-bust operation entails, the law prescribes specific procedures on the seizure and custody of drugs, independently of the general procedures geared to ensure that the rights of people under criminal investigation and of the accused facing a criminal charge are safeguarded. In this regard, Section 21, paragraph 1, Article II of Republic Act No. 9165 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. Furthermore, Section 21(a), Article II of the Implementing Rules and Regulations of Republic Act No. 9165 expounds on the aforementioned provision of law: (a) 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 noncompliance 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. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES vs. EDWIN ULAT y AGUINALDO @ PUDONG, G.R. No. 180504, 5 October 2011 Non-compliance with Section 21, Article II of Republic Act No. 9165 is not fatal and will not render an accused's arrest illegal or the items seized/confiscated from him inadmissible. What is of utmost importance is the preservation of the integrity and the evidentiary value of the seized items, as the same would be utilized in the determination of the guilt or innocence of the accused. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES vs. RICARDO MONDEJAR y BOCARILI, G.R. No. 193185, 12 October 2011 Anyway, this Court has consistently ruled that non-compliance with the requirements of Section 21 of R.A. No. 9165 will not necessarily render the items seized or confiscated in a buy-bust operation inadmissible. Strict compliance with the letter of Section 21 is not required if there is a clear showing that the integrity and the evidentiary value of the seized items have been preserved, i.e., the items being offered

in court as exhibits are, without a specter of doubt, the very same ones recovered in the buy-bust operation. Hence, once the possibility of substitution has been negated by evidence of an unbroken and cohesive chain of custody over the contraband, such contraband may be admitted and stand as proof of the corpus delicti notwithstanding the fact that it was never made the subject of an inventory or was photographed pursuant to Section 21 (1) of Republic Act No. 9165. RAUL DAVID vs. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, G.R. No. 181861, 17 October 2011 While noncompliance with the procedure laid out in Section 21 of R.A. No. 9165 is not necessarily fatal to the prosecution's case because the last sentence of the implementing rules provides 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," nevertheless, lapses in procedure "must be recognized and explained in terms of their justifiable grounds and the integrity and evidentiary value of the evidence seized must be shown to have been preserved." Otherwise, the procedure set out in the law will be mere lip service. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES vs. ROBERTO MARTIN Y CASTANO, G.R. No. 193234, 19 October 2011 While a testimony about a perfect chain is not always the standard because it is almost always impossible to obtain, an unbroken chain of custody becomes indispensable and essential when the item of real evidence is not distinctive and is not readily identifiable, or when its condition at the time of testing or trial is critical, or when a witness has failed to observe its uniqueness. The same standard likewise obtains in case the evidence is susceptible to alteration, tampering, contamination and even substitution and exchange. In other words, the exhibit's level of susceptibility to fungibility, alteration or tampering without regard to whether the same is advertent or otherwise not dictates the level of strictness in the application of the chain of custody rule. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES vs. ROBERTO MARTIN Y CASTANO, G.R. No. 193234, 19 October 2011 A unique characteristic of narcotic substances is that they are not readily identifiable as in fact they are subject to scientific analysis to determine their composition and nature. Hence, the risk of tampering, loss or mistake with respect to an exhibit of this nature is greatest when the exhibit is small and is one that has physical characteristics fungible in nature and similar in form to substances familiar to people in their daily lives. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES vs. ROBERTO MARTIN Y CASTANO, G.R. No. 193234, 19 October 2011

The Court cannot reluctantly close its eyes to the likelihood, or at least the possibility, that at any of the links in the chain of custody over a narcotic specimen there could have been tampering, alteration or substitution of substances from other cases by accident or otherwise in which similar evidence was seized or in which similar evidence was submitted for laboratory testing. Hence, in authenticating the same, a standard more stringent than that applied to cases involving objects which are readily identifiable must be applied, a more exacting standard that entails a chain of custody of the item with sufficient completeness if only to render it improbable that the original item has either been exchanged with another or been contaminated or tampered with. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES vs. ROBERTO MARTIN Y CASTANO, G.R. No. 193234, 19 October 2011 Non-compliance by the police with the directive of Section 21, Article 11 of R.A. No. 9165 is not necessarily fatal to a prosecutions case, in light of the last sentence of its implementing rules expressly stating 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. Simply put, mere lapses in procedures need not invalidate a seizure if the integrity and evidentiary value of the seized items can be shown to have been properly preserved and safeguarded. The procedures are there to ensure the integrity and evidentiary value of seized items, and can liberally be viewed if the attainment of these objectives is not in doubt. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES vs. ASMAD BARA y ASMAD G.R. No. 184808, 14 November 2011 While a perfect chain of custody is almost always impossible to achieve, an unbroken chain becomes indispensable and essential in the prosecution of drug cases owing to its susceptibility to alteration, tampering, contamination and even substitution and exchange. Accordingly, each and every link in the custody must be accounted for, from the time the shabu was retrieved during the buy-bust operation to its submission to the forensic chemist until its presentation before the RTC. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES vs. GARET SALCENA Y VICTORINO, G.R. No. 192261, 16 November 2011 Ideally, the procedure on the chain of custody should be perfect and unbroken. However "a testimony about a perfect chain is not always the standard as it is almost always impossible to obtain an unbroken chain." Thus, even though the prosecution failed to submit in evidence the physical inventory and photograph of the seized drugs as required under Section 21 of Republic Act No. 9165, this will not render the arrest illegal or the items seized from him as inadmissible in evidence. What is of utmost importance is the preservation of the integrity and the evidentiary value of the seized

items, because the same will be utilized in ascertaining the guilt or innocence of the accused." PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES vs. BENJAMIN AMANSEC y DONA, G.R. No. 186131, 14 December 2011 The Court is aware of the stringent requirements laid down in Section 21, paragraph 1 of Republic Act No. 9165 which states that: 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. However, minor deviations from the foregoing procedure would not necessarily result in an acquittal. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES vs. NELLY ULAMA y ARRISMA, G.R. No. 186530, 14 December 2011 On the issue of non-compliance with the prescribed procedures in the inventory of seized drugs, the rule is that it does not render an accuseds arrest illegal or the items seized/confiscated from him/[her] inadmissible. The requirements under R.A. No. 9165 and its Implementing Rules and Regulations (IRR) are not inflexible. What is essential is "the preservation of the integrity and the evidentiary value of the seized items, as the same would be utilized in the determination of the guilt or innocence of the accused." PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES vs. NELLY ULAMA y ARRISMA, G.R. No. 186530, 14 December 2011

DANGEROUS DRUGS Before the enactment of R.A. 9165, the governing law on dangerous drugs was R.A. 6425, which differentiated regulated drugs from prohibited drugs. It laid down different provisions for possession of regulated and prohibited drugs. Under R.A. 9165, the distinction between regulated and prohibited drugs has been removed and both are now classified as dangerous drugs. RAUL DAVID vs. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, G.R. No. 181861, 17 October 2011

ENTRAPMENT AND INSTIGATION Entrapment is sanctioned by the law as a legitimate method of apprehending criminals. Its purpose is to trap and capture lawbreakers in the execution of their criminal plan. Instigation, on the other hand, involves the inducement of the would-be

accused into the commission of the offense. In such a case, the instigators become coprincipals themselves. The distinction between entrapment and instigation has proven to be very relevant in anti-narcotics operations. It has become common practice for law enforcement officers and agents to engage in buy-bust operations and other entrapment procedures in apprehending drug offenders. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES vs. NENITA LEGASPI Y LUCAS, G.R. No. 173485, 23 November 2011

ILLEGAL POSSESSION OF DANGEROUS DRUGS For a prosecution for illegal possession of a dangerous drug to prosper, it must be shown that (a) the accused was in possession of an item or an object identified to be a prohibited or regulated drug; (b) such possession is not authorized by law; and (c) the accused was freely and consciously aware of being in possession of the drug. RAUL DAVID vs. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, G.R. No. 181861, 17 October 2011

ILLEGAL POSSESSION OF FIREARMS In crimes involving illegal possession of firearm, the prosecution has the burden of proving the elements thereof, viz.: (a) the existence of the subject firearm and (b) the fact that the accused who owned or possessed it does not have the license or permit to possess the same. The essence of the crime of illegal possession is the possession, whether actual or constructive, of the subject firearm, without which there can be no conviction for illegal possession. After possession is established by the prosecution, it would only be a matter of course to determine whether the accused has a license to possess the firearm. Possession of any firearm becomes unlawful only if the necessary permit or license therefor is not first obtained. The absence of license and legal authority constitutes an essential ingredient of the offense of illegal possession of firearm and every ingredient or essential element of an offense must be shown by the prosecution by proof beyond reasonable doubt. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES vs. ARNOLD T. AGCANAS, G.R. No. 174476, 11 October 2011

ILLEGAL SALE OF DRUGS In the crime of sale of dangerous drugs, the prosecution must be able to successfully prove the following elements: "(1) identities of the buyer and seller, the object, and the consideration; and (2) the delivery of the thing sold and the payment therefor." Similarly, it is essential that the transaction or sale be proved to have actually

taken place coupled with the presentation in court of evidence of corpus delicti which means the "actual commission by someone of the particular crime charged." PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES vs. EDWIN ULAT y AGUINALDO @ PUDONG, G.R. No. 180504, 5 October 2011 For a successful prosecution of offenses involving the illegal sale of drugs under Section 5, Article II of R.A. No. 9165, the following elements must be proven: (1) the identity of the buyer and the seller, the object of the sale and the consideration; and (2) the delivery of the thing sold and the payment therefor. What is material to the 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 of evidence. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES vs. ARNEL ZAPATA y CANILAO, G.R. No. 184054, 19 October 2011 In a prosecution for illegal sale of dangerous drugs, the following elements must be duly established: (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. The delivery of the illicit drug to the poseur-buyer and the receipt by the seller of the marked money successfully consummate the buy-bust transaction. What is material, therefore, is the proof that the transaction or sale transpired, coupled with the presentation in court of the corpus delicti. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES vs. ASMAD BARA y ASMAD G.R. No. 184808, 14 November 2011 Jurisprudence has firmly entrenched that in the prosecution for illegal sale of dangerous drugs, the following essential elements must be proven: (1) that the transaction or sale took place; (2) the corpus delicti or the illicit drug was presented as evidence; and (3) that the buyer and seller were identified. Implicit in all these is the need for proof that the transaction or sale actually took place, coupled with the presentation in court of the confiscated prohibited or regulated drug as evidence. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES vs. GARET SALCENA Y VICTORINO, G.R. No. 192261, 16 November 2011 It is an established rule that when an accused is charged with the sale of illicit drugs, the following defenses cannot be set up: (1) that facilities for the commission of the crime were intentionally placed in his way; or (2) that the criminal act was done at the solicitation of the decoy or poseur-buyer seeking to expose his criminal act; or (3) that police authorities feigning complicity in the act were present and apparently assisted in its commission. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES vs. NENITA LEGASPI Y LUCAS, G.R. No. 173485, 23 November 2011

Only two elements are to be proven for the prosecution of illegal sale of regulated or prohibited drugs: (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. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES vs. NENITA LEGASPI Y LUCAS, G.R. No. 173485, 23 November 2011 For the successful prosecution of the offense of illegal sale of dangerous drugs under the aforequoted statutory provision, the following elements must be proven: (1) the identity of the buyer and seller, object, and consideration; and (2) the delivery of the thing sold and the payment therefor. What is material to the 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 evidence of corpus delicti. The presence of all of these elements in the instant case has been duly established. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES vs. GREGG C. BUENAVENTURA, G.R. No. 184807, 23 November 2011 The successful prosecution of the sale of dangerous drugs case depends on the satisfaction of 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. In prosecutions for illegal sale of shabu, what is material is the proof that the transaction or sale actually took place, coupled with the presentation in court of the corpus delicti as evidence." PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES vs. BENJAMIN AMANSEC y DONA, G.R. No. 186131, 14 December 2011 The elements necessary for the prosecution of illegal sale of drugs are (1) the identities of the buyer and the seller, the object, and consideration; and (2) the delivery of the thing sold and the payment therefor. What is material to the 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 evidence of corpus delicti. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES vs. NELLY ULAMA y ARRISMA, G.R. No. 186530, 14 December 2011

JURISDICTION OF COURTS Under R.A. 9165, Congress empowered this Court with the full discretion to designate special courts to hear, try and decide drug cases. It was precisely in the exercise of this discretionary power that the powers of the executive judge were included in Chap. V, Sec. 9 of A.M. No. 03-8-02-SC vis--vis Sec. 5(5) of Article VIII of the 1987 Constitution. Thus, in cases of inhibition or disqualification, the executive judge is mandated to assign the drug case to a regular court in the following order: first,

to the pairing judge of the special court where the case was originally assigned; and, second, if the pairing judge is likewise disqualified or has inhibited himself, then to another regular court through a raffle. Under these exceptional circumstances, this Court designated the regular court, ipso facto, as a special court but only for that case. Being a "designated special court," it is likewise bound to follow the relevant rules in trying and deciding the drug case pursuant to R.A. 9165. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES vs. HON. JOSE D. AZARRAGA and JOHN REY PREVENDIDO, G.R. Nos. 187117 and 187127, 12 October 2011

NECESSITY OF PRIOR SURVEILLANCE The conduct of surveillance prior to a buy-bust operation is not required especially when the police officers are accompanied to the scene by their civilian informant. This is so because there is no rigid or textbook method in conducting buybust operations. Flexibility is a trait of good police work, and the need for prior surveillance may be dispensed with when time is of the essence. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES vs. NENITA LEGASPI Y LUCAS, G.R. No. 173485, 23 November 2011 There is no requirement that prior surveillance should be conducted before a buy-bust operation can be undertaken especially when, as in this case, the policemen are accompanied to the scene by their civilian informant. Prior surveillance is not a prerequisite for the validity of an entrapment or a buy-bust operation, there being no fixed or textbook method for conducting one. We have held that when time is of [the] essence, the police may dispense with the need for prior surveillance. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES vs. BENJAMIN AMANSEC y DONA, G.R. No. 186131, 14 December 2011

OBJECTIVE TEST We therefore stress that the objective test in buy-bust operation demands that the details of the purported transaction must be clearly and adequately shown. This must start from the initial contact between the poseur-buyer and the pusher, the offer for 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. The manner by which the initial contact was made, whether or not through an informant, the offer to purchase the drug, the payment of the buy-bust money, and the delivery of the illegal drug, whether to the informant alone or the police officer, must be the subject of strict scrutiny by courts to insure that law-abiding citizens are not unlawfully induced to commit an

offense. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES vs. GARET SALCENA Y VICTORINO, G.R. No. 192261, 16 November 2011

PRESENTATION OF INFORMANT IN DRUGS CASES The presentation of an informant is not a requisite for the successful prosecution of drug cases. Informants are almost always never presented in court because of the need to preserve their invaluable service to the police. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES vs. NENITA LEGASPI Y LUCAS, G.R. No. 173485, 23 November 2011 The presentation of an informant in an illegal drugs case is not essential for the conviction nor is it indispensable for a successful prosecution because his testimony would be merely corroborative and cumulative." The informants testimony is not needed if the sale of the illegal drug has been adequately proven by the prosecution. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES vs. BENJAMIN AMANSEC y DONA, G.R. No. 186131, 14 December 2011

TRAFFICKING IN PERSONS The crime of Trafficking in Persons can exist even with the victims consent or knowledge under Section 3(a) of RA 9208. Trafficking in Persons under Sections 3(a) and 4 of RA 9208 is not only limited to transportation of victims, but also includes the act of recruitment of victims for trafficking. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES vs. HADJA JARMA LALLI y PURIH, RONNIE ARINGOY y MASION, and NESTOR RELAMPAGOS (at large), G.R. No. 195419, 12 October 2011