Caught in the act

Buy-bust operation is a recognized mode of catching violators of the Dangerous Drugs Act. Usually it is done after the police have conducted surveillance on a tip given by an informant. But will the lack of surveillance and testimony of the informant render the buy-bust operation illegal? This is answered in this case of Ben and Mariel.

On August 16, 2002, the police received a report from an informant detailing rampant selling of shabu along a street in one of Makati’s low end barangays. The informant specifically named a certain “Ben” and “Mariel” as being engaged in such illegal sale.

Hence the Makati Police immediately formed a five man team to conduct a buy-bust operation headed by SPO2 Rey. On the same day, the team proceeded to the area accompanied by the informant reaching the place about 10:30 p.m. Just after midnight, the following day, Ben and Mariel were seen standing along the street. So the informant and a team member PO2 Vic as poseur-buyer approached the two. After the informant introduced Vic as shabu buyer worth P100, Vic handed the marked money to Ben and Ben got from Mariel the shabu which he handed to Vic.

When Vic lighted a cigarette as a prearranged signal, the other team member, PO2 Inggo immediately approached the group, introduced himself as a policeman and apprehended Mariel from whom he confiscated a small tin box containing 3 plastic sachets of shabu that he turned over to team leader Rey who correspondingly marked them. PO2 Vic thereupon likewise arrested Ben after introducing himself as a police officer and informing both Ben and Mariel of their rights.

Ben and Mariel were then brought to the police for investigation where they were identified as Ben and his girlfriend Mariel who was then still a minor. Based on the investigation report and laboratory examination of the contents of the sachets, Ben and Mariel were correspondingly charged with violation of Section 11 of the Dangerous Drugs Law.

The trial court found Ben and Mariel guilty as charged mainly on the testimonies of PO2 Vic, the poseur buyer, corroborated by PO2 Inggo who both narrated the standard police buy bust operation.

Ben questioned the decision. He said the buy-bust operation was conducted illegally as there was no surveillance conducted at all and the informant did not even testify. Was Ben correct?

That the informant was not presented by the prosecution does not prejudice the State’s case as all the elements of illegal sale and possession of shabu by Ben were satisfactorily proven by testimonial, documentary and object evidence. The informant’s testimony is only corroborative and is not indispensable. Informers are almost always never presented in court because of the need to preserve their invaluable service to the police.

Prior surveillance is also not required for the buy-bust operation to be valid especially where the operatives are accompanied to the scene by the informant or where the police officers have reasonable ground to believe that the informer and the information given are reliable and that a crime is indeed being perpetrated. Buy-bust operation is formed precisely to test the veracity of the tip and to apprehend the perpetrator, if he in fact commits the offense, before he further endangers society (People vs. Garcia, G.R. 172975, August 8, 2007).

Note: Books containing compilation of my articles on Labor Law and Criminal Law (Vols. I and II) are now available. Call tel. 7249445.

* * *

E-mail at: [email protected]