Republic of the Philippines vs. Ronald De Jesus and Amelito Dela Cruz
G.R. No. 191753 ; 17 September 2012
PONENTE: Brion
SUBJECT: Illegal Sale of Dangerous Drugs, Buy-Bust Operation
FACTS:
The District Anti-Illegal Drugs Special Task Force (DAID) received a tip from its asses about illegal drug activities on Cartier St., Barangay Pasong Tamo, Quezon City. The DAID Chief then formed a team to conduct a buy-bust operation and designated PO1 Hamdani to act as a poseur-buyer. He was given a P1,000 bill to be used in the operation, which he marked his initials. After coordinanting with the PDEA, the buy-bust team accompanied by the asset proceeded to Cartier St., where they saw the accused. The asset introduced the accused to the poseur-buyer, who expressed intention to buy shabu, but no sale took place because the accused had not stock at that time. When they returned the next day, accused De Jesus told them that he already had the “stuff”. The poseur-buyer then handed the marked money and Dela Cruz handed him the shabu. After the exchange, the poseur-buyer made a pre-arranged signal which prompted the buy-bust team to immediately arrest the accused. Two (2) plastic sachets of white substance and the marked money was found in the possession of Dela Cruz. The accused were brought to the DAID office for booking and investigation while the confiscated white substance tested positive for shabu. The accused denied the charges against them and claimed that there was no buy-bust operation which took place but that they were abducted in their homes by armed men. During trial, the accused presented several testimonies evidences to contradict the documentary evidence for the prosecution.
ISSUE:
- Whether or not the CA and RTC erred in the giving credence to the evidence presented by the prosecution
- Whether or not the inconsistencies in the testimonies of the police officers is fatal for the prosecution
- Whether or not there was a valid buy-bust operation
HELD:
- No, testimonial evidence cannot prevail over the documentary and physical evidence arrayed against the accused because the defense’s testimonial evidence were (1) largely self-serving, (2) the defenses of denial and police extortion cannot prevail over the positive and categorical assertions of the police officers against whom no ill-motive was established, (3) the testimonies of the defense witnesses were unable to discount or render impossible the participation of the accused in the buy-bust operation and (4) the testimonies of the defense are self-serving.
- In the prosecution illegal sale of dangerous drugs the following elements must first be established: (1) the identity of the buyer and the seller, the object and consideration of the sale; and (2) the delivery of the thing sold and the payment therefor. The commission of the offense of illegal sale of dangerous drugs merely requires the consummation of the selling transaction, which happens the moment the buyer receives the drug from the seller.
- Yes, the Supreme Court held that police officers would not commit the serious crimes of abduction and extortion knowing that they would risk their liberty and employment to arrest the ablest accused. The RTC also noted that the alleged extortion came only after the case had already been submitted by the police officers for proper disposition.
Buy-bust operations are recognized methods of trapping and capturing lawbreakers in drug-related crimes. Upon proof and establishment of a prima facie case based on the buy-bust evidence, the burden of evidence shifts to the defense to support its denial or to show that irregularities attended the buy-bust story that the prosecution presented.
