What is a buy bust operation; nature

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.

----------------------------------------------------------