FACTS:
The
accused-appellant was under surveillance for four days by police operatives. On
the fourth day, at about midnight, the police operatives conducted a buy-bust
operation on the house of the accused. The buy-bust operation went successful
and that the accused was found to have sold to the poseur-buyer(police
operative) a 0.73 gram-Methamphetamine Hydrochloride (shabu), a regulated drug.
ISSUE:
Whether the trial court and the court of
appeals overlooked certain material and undisputed facts in erroneously
concluding that the alleged buy-bust operation conducted without a search
warrant or warrant of arrest took place outside the residence of the
petitioner.
HELD:
Well-settled is the rule that findings of
trial courts which are factual in nature and which involve the credibility of
witnesses are to be respected when no glaring errors, gross misapprehension of
facts and speculative, arbitrary and unsupported conclusions can be gleaned
from such findings. Such findings carry even more weight if they are
affirmed by the Court of Appeals, as in the case at bar. The alleged flaws
pointed out by appellant are not enough for us to reverse the factual findings
of the courts a quo.
The police officers were clear and
categorical in their narration of how the entrapment operation was conducted.
SPO1 Inciong, acting as a poseur-buyer, was introduced by the informer to
appellant in front of the latter’s apartment. Thereafter, appellant went inside
his apartment and came back with two packets of shabu. Inciong handed to
appellant six pieces of P100 bills treated with ultra-violet powder in
exchange for one packet of shabu. Immediately after, Inciong gave the
signal to the other policemen who then entered the compound and effected
appellant’s arrest. Recovered from appellant was the other packet of shabu and
the six pieces of marked money. The tests conducted on these pieces of
evidence, appellant’s hands and right front pants-pocket showed that appellant
was the same person who sold the drugs to police officer Inciong. There was
strong evidence therefore, certainly beyond reasonable doubt, that appellant
was engaged in drug-dealing.
The elements of the crime were duly proven.
In the prosecution of the offense of illegal sale of prohibited drugs, 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.23
On the other hand, appellant insists he was
framed up for possession of shabu after the search in his apartment
produced no illegal drugs. Frame-up, a usual defense of those accused in
drug-related cases, is viewed by the Court with disfavor since it is an
allegation that can be made with ease. For this claim to prosper, the defense
must adduce clear and convincing evidence to overcome the presumption that the
arresting policemen performed their duties in a regular and proper manner.
No comments:
Post a Comment