Buy Ecstasy Fortaleza

__________________________

📍 Verified store!

📍 Guarantees! Quality! Reviews!

__________________________

▼▼ ▼▼ ▼▼ ▼▼ ▼▼ ▼▼ ▼▼

▲▲ ▲▲ ▲▲ ▲▲ ▲▲ ▲▲ ▲▲

Buy Ecstasy Fortaleza

Before this Court is a special civil action for certiorari under Rule 65 seeking to reverse the following Orders in Criminal Case No. Q issued by public respondent Judge Rafael R. Cubian PO2 Cubian as back-up, while the rest of the team members were to serve as perimeter security. The CI then called respondent Estacio, informing him that a prospective buyer wished to purchase thirty 30 tablets of ecstasy with a total value of P50, After PO2 Frando was introduced to Estacio as the prospective buyer, the latter demanded to see the payment. However, PO2 Frando asked him to first show the ecstasy pills. Respondent Castro handed PO2 Frando one sealed plastic sachet containing several pink pills. The removal of the cap was the prearranged signal to the rest of the buy-bust team that the transaction was complete. As officer in charge of the inventory of the evidence seized, PO2 Cubian turned over the plastic sachet to PO3 Jose Rey Serrona, who was in charge of the investigation. Manaog conducted a laboratory examination of the contents of the sachet, which was completed at a. The case was raffled to the sala of Judge Fernando Sagum, Jr. Upon arraignment, respondents pleaded not guilty to the charges. Trial ensued, and the prosecution presented its evidence, including the testimonies of four witnesses: PO2 Marlo V. Frando, PO2 Ruel P. After the prosecution submitted its Formal Offer of Evidence on 17 November , respondents filed a Motion for leave of court to file their demurrer, as well as a Motion to resolve their Petition for Bail. On 2 January , Judge Sagum issued a Resolution denying both the Petition for Bail and the Motion for leave of court to file a demurrer. Respondent Estacio then sought the inhibition of Judge Sagum, a move subsequently adopted by respondents Dy and Castro. On 15 January , Presiding Judge Sagum inhibited himself from the case. On 31 January , the case was re-raffled to public respondent Judge Lagos. On 24 June , he issued the second assailed Order, acquitting all the accused. On Motion for Reconsideration filed by the People, he issued the third assailed Order denying the above motion and granting the Motion to Withdraw Cash Bonds filed by the accused. Before this Court, the prosecution argues that Judge Lagos committed grave abuse of discretion tantamount to lack or excess of jurisdiction in granting the demurrer despite clear proof of the elements of the illegal sale, the existence of the corpus delicti , and the arrest in flagrante delicto. We grant the petition. Respondent judge committed grave abuse of discretion in granting the demurrer. It has long been settled that the grant of a demurrer is tantamount to an acquittal. An acquitted defendant is entitled to the right of repose as a direct consequence of the finality of his acquittal. The rule on double jeopardy is subject to the exercise of judicial review by way of the extraordinary writ of certiorari under Rule 65 of the Rules of Court. The Supreme Court is endowed with the power to determine whether or not there has been a grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction on the part of any branch or instrumentality of the government. Suan were insufficient to prove the culmination of the illegal sale, or to show their personal knowledge of the offer to sell and the acceptance thereof. In granting the demurrer filed by the accused, respondent judge surmised that it was the CI who had initiated the negotiation of the sale and should have thus been presented at trial. PO2 Frando was present during the negotiation and the actual buy-bust operation. PO2 Frando himself acted as the poseur-buyer and testified in open court. PO2 Cubian frisked the accused and recovered the buy-bust money; he also testified in court. Manaog testified as to the corpus delicti of the crime; and the 30 pills of ecstasy were duly marked, identified, and presented in court. The validity of buy-bust transactions as an effective way of apprehending drug dealers in the act of committing an offense is well-settled. Unless there is clear and convincing evidence that the members of the buy-bust team were inspired by any improper motive or were not properly performing their duty, their testimonies on the operation deserve faith and credit. Neither was there evidence adduced to show that they neglected to perform their duties properly. Hence, their testimonies as to the conduct of the buy-bust operation deserves full faith and credence. Respondent judge harps on the fact that it was the CI who had personal knowledge of the identity of the seller, the initial offer to purchase the ecstasy pills, and the subsequent acceptance of the offer. It is clear from the testimonies of PO2 Frando and the other arresting officers that they conducted the buy-bust operation based on the information from the CI. However, the arrest was made, not on the basis of that information, but of the actual buy-bust operation, in which respondents were caught in flagrante delicto engaged in the illegal sale of dangerous drugs. Due to the investigative work of the AIDSOTF members, the illegal sale was consummated in their presence, and the elements of the sale — the identity of the sellers, the delivery of the drugs, and the payment therefor — were confirmed. The accused argued that mere reliable information from the CI was an insufficient ground for his warrantless arrest. His arrest came as a result of a valid buy-bust operation, a form of entrapment in which the violator is caught in flagrante delicto. The police officers conducting a buy-bust operation are not only authorized but also duty-bound to apprehend the violators and to search them for anything that may have been part of or used in the commission of the crime. From the time they were tipped off by the confidential informant at around a. Given the foregoing, respondent Judge Lagos erred in requiring the testimony of the CI. Respondent judge based his ruling on a case, People v. However, there is no basis for this conclusion, as Ong involved a conviction based on the lone testimony of one apprehending officer, Senior Police Officer SPO1 Gonzales. In this case, one of the witnesses, PO2 Frando, was a buy-bust team member who also acted as the poseur-buyer. He participated in the actual sale transaction. His testimony was a firsthand account of what transpired during the buy-bust and thus stemmed from his personal knowledge of the arrest in flagrante delicto. Requiring the CI to testify is an added imposition that runs contrary to jurisprudential doctrine, since the Court has long established that the presentation of an informant is not a requisite for the prosecution of drug cases. The testimony of the CI is not indispensable, since it would be merely corroborative of and cumulative with that of the poseur-buyer who was presented in court, and who testified on the facts and circumstances of the sale and delivery of the prohibited drug. If the prosecution has several eyewitnesses, as in the instant case, it need not present all of them but only as many as may be needed to meet the quantum of proof necessary to establish the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt. We find and so hold that the grant of the demurrer for this reason alone was not supported by prevailing jurisprudence and constituted grave abuse of discretion. Yelah C. Court of Appeals and Galicia, Phil. Velasco, Phil. De Vera, G. De Gran o, G. Chua, Phil. Dumangay, G. Unisa, G. Dumangay, supr a note Buenaventura , G. Utoh , G. Andres, G. View printer friendly version.