Scribd
Upload
104 views

PP vs. Sood

The document discusses the failure of the prosecution to comply with legal requirements for a buy-bust operation. Specifically, it summarizes that the prosecution failed to: 1) Bring the three required witnesses (from the media, DOJ, and elected official) to the buy-bust operation and drug seizure. 2) Conduct the inventory and photographing of seized drugs at the place of seizure, as required. The excuse of avoiding commotion was deemed insufficient, as buy-bust operations are planned events. 3) Provide any reason for not having the three witnesses present during the inventory and photographing of seized drugs.

Uploaded by

cho126
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
104 views

PP vs. Sood

The document discusses the failure of the prosecution to comply with legal requirements for a buy-bust operation. Specifically, it summarizes that the prosecution failed to: 1) Bring the three required witnesses (from the media, DOJ, and elected official) to the buy-bust operation and drug seizure. 2) Conduct the inventory and photographing of seized drugs at the place of seizure, as required. The excuse of avoiding commotion was deemed insufficient, as buy-bust operations are planned events. 3) Provide any reason for not having the three witnesses present during the inventory and photographing of seized drugs.

Uploaded by

cho126
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
You are on page 1/ 1

People of the Philippines vs.

Norjana Sood y Amatondin (to avoid commotion not


justifiable ground)

Finally, and most revealing as to whether or not a buy-bust actually took place is the
prosecution's abject and complete failure to comply with the requirement of bringing
along the required three witnesses - from the media, the DOJ, and any elected public
official. To be certain, these witnesses should already have been present at the time
of apprehension and the drugs' seizure, as this is a requirement the buy-bust team
could easily have complied with given the nature of a buy-bust operation as a planned
activity.

The Court again takes this opportunity to emphasize that the presence of the three
witnesses required by Section 21 is precisely to protect and guard against the
pernicious practice of policemen in planting evidence. Without the insulating
presence of the three witnesses during the seizure and marking of the drugs, the evils
of switching, "planting" or contamination of the evidence that had tainted the buy-
busts conducted under the regime of RA 6425 (Dangerous Drugs Act of 1972) again
reared their ugly heads as to negate the integrity and credibility of the seizure and
confiscation of the seized drugs that were evidence of the corpus delicti, and thus
adversely affected the trustworthiness of the incrimination of accused-appellant.

Here, the prosecution's reason for not conducting the inventory in the place
of seizure was that they supposedly wanted to avoid any commotion at the
area because there would be vehicular traffic. P02 Hega testified during his
re-direct examination:

The foregoing reason hardly qualifies as sufficient justification for not


complying with the requirements of Section 21 as to the conduct of the
inventory and photographing at the place of seizure. As buy-bust operations
are planned, the team could have easily ensured that the conduct of the
inventory and photographing would cause minimal disruption to the area.
Similarly, in People v. Mola, 23 the Court considered the following excuse
as hollow: the apprehending officer conducted the inventory at the nearest
police station because he was the only one in the area and that there were
many persons there. Also, in People v. Cornel,24 the Court ruled that the
buy-bust team's excuse of the existence of a commotion was not a justifiable
reason for failing to conduct the inventory at the place of seizure. The Court
there ruled that seven armed members of the buy-bust team could have
easily contained any commotion, thus they should have been able to
conduct the marking and inventory at the place of seizure.

Further, and more importantly, the records fail to show any reason for the
prosecution's failure to comply with the presence of the three witnesses during the
inventory and photographing of the seized drugs.

You might also like