Jasper Tan v People, GR No. 232611 [Case Digest]

 

 

Jasper Tan v People,

GR No. 232611

Facts:

            During a buy-bust operation police officers gave two marked 100-peso bills to the poseur-buyer who transacted with Jasper at the gate of the latter's house. The police officers were observing the transaction covertly. The buy-bust operation was successful so they handcuffed Jasper, and served him a search warrant.

            Thereafter, they searched Jasper's room in the presence of Brgy Cap. Velasco. Recovered were the marked money, drug paraphernalia, and white crystalline substance inside six (6) big plastic sachets and two (2) small plastic sachets found on a table and on top of a cabinet inside Jasper's room. The sachets with white crystalline substance were delivered to the crime laboratory for examination and all tested positive for shabu.

            RTC and CA found the accused guilty of the crime charged.

 

Issue:

            Whether the “objective test” had been complied in the case at bar.

 

Held:

            NO. To determine the validity of a buy-bust operation, the Court has consistently applied the "objective test." In People v. Doria, the Court explained that the "objective test" requires the details of the purported transaction during the buy-bust operation to be clearly and adequately shown, i. e., the initial contact between the poseur-buyer and the pusher, the offer to purchase the drug, and the promise or payment of the consideration, payment using the buy-bust or marked money, up to the consummation of the sale by the delivery of the illegal drug subject of the sale whether to the informant alone or the police officer. All these details must be subject of strict scrutiny by courts to ensure that citizens are not unlawfully induced to commit an offense.

            Here, the prosecution failed to clearly establish the details of the purported sale. Nothing in the records shows the initial contact between the poseur-buyer and the seller, and the manner by which the initial contact was made. The offer to buy, the willingness to sell, and the agreed purchase price were not satisfactorily shown.

èAgain, the "objective test" requires that the prosecution paint a clear picture of how the initial contact between the buyer and the pusher was made. It is not enough to show that there was an exchange of money and illegal drugs. The details that led to such exchange must be clearly and adequately accounted for. Failing in which will certainly cast a doubt on the veracity of the whole buy-bust operation. On this note alone, the guilt of Jasper as to illegal sale of dangerous drugs is already doubtful. Nonetheless, the lapses that the buy-bust team committed in this case are worth mentioning.

 

 

àNo witness who had personal knowledge of the alleged transaction
which took place between the poseur-buyer and Jasper was presented. The
police officers could not hear or see what was happening between the poseurbuyer and Jasper, considering the distance of their position from the location
of the transaction along with the size of the subject of this transaction.

 

àWe find it doubtful that P02 Jose was able to reasonably ascertain what was said, if any, between Jasper and the poseur-buyer, and what was handed by Jasper, if any, to the poseur-buyer. In several cases, this Court took into account the distance of the officers from the location where the transaction occurred in acquitting the accused. In People v. Delina, the police officers were about 8 to 10 meters away. Likewise, in People v. Conlu, the police officers were approximately 10 meters away. The Court found that police officer was "merely an observer" when he testified that he was more or less 7 meters away, in People v. Casacop. In these cases, we found that the police officers had no personal knowledge of the transaction, their testimonies were insufficient, and the non-presentation of the poseur-buyer proved fatal.

 

 

àThe poseur-buyer would have established what transaction took place, but he was not presented. While it is true that a conviction may be confirmed notwithstanding the non-presentation of the poseur-buyer in the buy-bust operation, such non-presentation is excusable only when the poseur-buyer's testimony is merely corroborative, there being some other eyewitness who is competent to testify on the sale transaction.

 

 

èThe place to be searched based on the search warrant is Jasper's room inside a house located at Magsaysay Street, corner Tomas Claudio Street where the accused resides.  As found by the trial court, the transaction between Jasper and the poseur-buyer was made at the gate of Jasper's house. After the buy-bust operation, the police officers handcuffed Jasper, and was served a search warrant. Thereafter, the police officers searched his room in the presence of the barangay captain.  There is no evidence on record showing that Jasper was brought to his room to observe the search of the premises.

 

 

àThe evidence points to only the barangay captain witnessing the search. Such a procedure violates Section 8 ffom1erly Section 7), Rule 126 of the Rules of Court which specifically provides that "no search of a house, room or any other premises shall be made except in the presence of the lawful occupant thereof or any member of his family or in the absence of the latter, two witnesses of sufficient age and discretion residing in the same locality." Only in the absence of either the lawful occupant of the premises or any member of his family can the search be observed by two (2) witnesses of
sufficient age and discretion residing in the same locality. The police officers do not have the discretion to substitute their choice of witness, the barangay captain in this case, for those witnesses prescribed by the rules.