WAVE TWO- RA 9165 (Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002) CASES AND

JURISPRUDENCE
(Note: Due to persistent public demand, I'm posting topics about drugs law. I am
fervently hoping that you will read everything in its entirety including the SC
citations)
A. ACCUSED TOLD YOU: IT IS IMPOSSIBLE TO SELL DRUGS TO YOU BECAUSE YOU
ARE A POLICEMAN
Knowledge of the accused that the poseur-buyer is a policeman is not a ground to
support the theory that the accused could not have sold narcotics to the latter. Drug
pushers have become increasingly daring in the operation of their illicit trade and
have not hesitated to act openly, almost casually and even in scornful violation of
the law, in selling prohibited drugs to any and all buyers. In fact, drugs are sold
even to police officers nowadays, some of whom are users, if not pushers
themselves. (People v. Nida Alegro, GR No. 112797, July 8, 1997)
B. MONEY USED IN IN THE BUY BUST WAS NOT OFFICIALLY MARKED BUT MERELY
RECORDED IN A PRIVATE LOGBOOK
The recording of the marked-money used in a buy-bust operation is not one of the
elements for the prosecution of sale of illegal drugs. The recording or non-recording
thereof in an official record will not necessarily lead to an acquittal as long as the
sale of the prohibited drug is adequately proven. (Teresita Suson and Antonio Fortich
v. People, GR No. 152848, July 12, 2006)
C. BELATED RECORDING OF BUY-BUST MONEY
Money used in a buy-bust operation is not one of the elements for the prosecution
of sale of illegal drugs. The recording or non-recording thereof in an official record
will not necessarily lead to an acquittal as long as the sale of the prohibited drug is
adequately proven
D.NON-PRESENTATION OF INFORMANT
The non-presentation of the informant does not prejudice the States cause if the
elements of illegal sale and possession of shabu were satisfactorily proven by
testimonial, documentary and object evidence. At best, the testimony of the
informant would only have been corroborative of the testimonies of the poseurbuyer and the back-up team (People v. Roberto T. Garcia, GR No. 172975, August 8,
2007)
E.ABOUT INVENTORY FORM
When the accused signed the inventory form without the assistance of counsel, the
FACT OF SIGNING THE INVENTORY FORM AND HIS RECEIPT is NOT ADMISSIBLE IN
EVIDENCE. This is so because the signature of the accused on such receipt is a
DECLARATION AGAINST HIS INTEREST and a tacit ADMISSION of the crime charged.
However, kahit inadmissible ung fact na tinanggap nya ang kopya ng inventory
form, hindi ibig sabihin nun ay hindi na xa macoconvict. He can still be convicted of

the crime if the prosecution will successfully prove that there was a valid buy-bust
operation. (People vs. Saidamin Macabalang, GR No. 168694, November 27, 2006)
F. FAILURE TO RECALL THE SERIAL NUMBERS OF THE BUY-BUST MONEY
The poseur-buyers failure to recall the serial numbers of the marked money does
not discredit his testimony.. His inability to recall the serial numbers contributes to
his credibility as a witness, for one who is telling the truth is not always expected to
give a perfectly precise testimony, considering the lapse of time and the frailty of
human memory. Honest inconsistencies on MINOR DETAILS serve to strengthen,
rather than destry, the credibility of a witness. (Rufino lapuz v. People, GR No.
150050, June 17, 2004)
G. ACCUSED DEFENSE OF INSTIGATION
The buy-bust operation was set precisely to test the veracity of the informants tip
and to arrest the malefactor if the report proved to be true. Under the
circumstances, the police officers were not only authorized but were under an
obligation to arrest the drug pusher even without an arrest warrant as the crime
was committed in their presence. (People vs. Gerardo Gonzales, GR No. 143805,
April 11, 2002)
H. INSTANCES OF WARRANTLESS SEARCHES DURING CHECKPOINTS
GENERAL RULE: Checkpoint is limited to routine checks only -- visual inspection or
flashing a light inside the car, without the occupants being subjected to physical or
body searches. A search of the luggage inside the vehicle would require the
existence of probable cause.
EXCEPTIONAL CASES:
1.Where the distinctive odor of marijuana emanated from the plastic bag carried by
the accused (People v. Claudio, 160 SCA 646)
2.Where an informer POSITIVELY identified the accused who was observed to have
been acting suspiciously (People v. Tangliben, 184 SCRA 220)
3.Where the accused fled when accosted by policemen (Posadas vs. CA, 188 SCRA
288)
4.Where the accused who were riding a jeepney were stopped and searched by
policemen who had EARLIER received confidential reports that said accused would
transport a large quantity of marijuana (People v. Maspil Jr. 188SCRA 751)
5.Where the moving vehicle was stopped and searched on the basis of
INTELLIGENCE INFO and clandestine reports by a deep penetration agent or spy that
said accused were bringing prohibited drugs into the country (people v. Lo Ho Wing,
193 SCRA 122)