PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES,

-versus-

LEO DEE

The Assistant Provincial Prosecutor accuses, Leo Dee, a 25 year old, a factory worker,
for Violation of Section 5, par. 1, of R.A 9165( Also Known as the Violation of
Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002,one of the arresting officer, Robert Bagwis, a member of
Philippine National Police of Binangonan, Rizal, narrates the facts of the prosecution, as
follows:

(a) In the late afternoon of June 29,2019 to a certain, Leo Dee, who, allegedly Sells
Methamphetamine or also known as “Shabu” in Barangay Isidro, Binanongan, Rizal.
The said information was based on the statements of a confidential informant who
infiltrated to spy Leo Dee, whether or not he is selling the said dangerous drug.
During the course of surveillance, the informant confirmed that, Leo Dee was
selling Shabu in the said vicinity and the Dangerous Drug Enforcement Team
immediately reported to Mateo Suki, the chief of police of Binongan, after giving further
instructions the Chief of Police steadfastly conducted a buy-bust-operation through the
leadership of Lukas Koni, together with Police officer Dino Sigla and Fanta De sal/
During the operation, the arresting officer Robert Bagalawis, posed himself as a
police asset and bought a “200 pesos worth of shabu” and the team immediately
arrested the suspect during the course of the buy-bust-operation and brought him to the
Police station, now the Assistant Prosecutor filed a case in the Regional Trial court of
Binongan, Rizal, Branch 33.

(b) On the Trial, the accused contended; that during the said surveillance the
witness/arresting officer did not conduct a proper apprehension of the accused and
does not have a specific information regarding with the accused identity. Instead the
arresting team, conducted a buy bust operation without the presence of the Media,
elected official of the barangay and representative from PDEA, the witness/arresting
officer, personally relied on the information given by the informant.
During the Cross examination of the witness/arresting officer:
Defense Counsel
Q: Mr. witness, are you the one who received the information coming from the
confidential informant that a certain Leo Dee is engage in selling of the drugs?
A: Yes, Sir
Q: Can you please look inside this courtroom and point to us who is Leo Dee?
A: The man wearing yellow shirt Ma’am (the witness is pointing to a man in yellow shirt
who answered by the name of Leo Dee
Prosecutor:
We would like to put into record, Your Honor, that the witness was able to identify the
accused in these cases. That will be all for the witness, Your Honor, amd he now open
for cross.
Q: Mr. witness are you the one who received the information coming from the
confidential informant that a certain, Leo Dee is engaged in selling of drugs?
A: Yes, Sir
Q: So did you inquire from the confidential informant about the personal information of
this Leo Dee?

(People vs. Delacruz, G.R. No. 185717, June 08 ,2011)

A: Yes, sir Pardon, Sir?
Q: Did you inqure personal information?
A: No, sir, but according to the informant he involved in drugs.
Q: is it correct that accused Leo dee is not a resident of Brgy. Isidro?
A: Yes, Sir
Q: and you did not inquire how this confidential information knew Leo Dee, correct?
A: according to the confidential informant, sir he knew him.
Q: MR. witness, after you received information, you conducted and surveillance,
correct?
A: Yes, sir
Q: And the casing and surveillance turned out positive and you saw the accused selling
drugs.
A: Yes, Sir
Q: however you did not apprehend him during that time, instead you prepared for a buy-
bust, tama?
A: Yes, Sir
Q: and, mr. witness when you prepared for a buy-bust, you set the place in the same
place in Brgy. Isidro
A: Yes, Sir
Q: so you are the one who communicated with the accused that buy-bust will happen in
Brgy. Isidro
A: Wala, sir
Q: during the briefing you have no personal info and you don’t know the accused?
A: I don’t know him personally, sir
Q: and mr. witness during the buy-bust who is your team leader again?
A: si hepe po
Q: so during the bring, it was shown to you the pictures or the image of the accused is
that correct?
A: Yes, sir
Q: And mr. witness, likewise before the buy bust you did not call the representative from
media and DOJ and an elected official, correct?
A: yes sir

After the trial, the court ordered that; the Assistant prosecutor has a five (5) days to
formally submit her exhibits furnish the testimony of the witness.

(c) Main Issue: whether or not the arresting officer and the drug enforcement team
properly follows the procedure of a buy-bust operation?
No. the prosecution has not proved his commission of the crime charged for the
following irregularities: (1) the arresting officers did not coordinate with the PDEA, as
required under Sec. 86 of RA 9165; (2) no physical inventory was conducted and
photograph taken of the alleged seized drug in the presence of public officials, as
required by Sec. 21 of RA 9165; and (3) the chain of custody was not duly proved by
the prosecution.1
(d) Subordinate issue: whether or not the said entrapment is legal?
No. in order for an entrapment to be legal, a buy-bust operation is "a form of
entrapment, in which the violator is caught in flagrante delicto and the police officers
conducting the operation are not only authorized but duty-bound to apprehend the
violator and to search him for anything that may have been part of or used in the
commission of the crime."16 However, where there really was no buy-bust operation
conducted, it cannot be denied that the elements for illegal sale of prohibited drugs
cannot be duly proved despite the presumption of regularity in the performance of
official duty and the seeming straightforward testimony in court by the arresting police
officers. After all, the indictment for illegal sale of prohibited drugs will not have a leg to
stand on.2

(People vs. Delacruz, G.R. No. 185717, June 08 ,2011)

(People vs. Delacruz, G.R. No. 185717, June 08 ,2011)