Photo from Unsplash | Ian Keefe
The following post does not create a lawyer-client relationship between Alburo Alburo and Associates Law Offices (or any of its lawyers) and the reader. It is still best for you to engage the services of a lawyer or you may directly contact and consult Alburo Alburo and Associates Law Offices to address your specific legal concerns, if there is any.
Also, the matters contained in the following were written in accordance with the law, rules, and jurisprudence prevailing at the time of writing and posting, and do not include any future developments on the subject matter under discussion.
AT A GLANCE:
There is no need to present the confidential informant (CI) since the testimony would merely corroborate the testimonies of those who actually witnessed the transaction.
However, if the CI is also the poseur-buyer, there is a need to present him/her.
To secure conviction in a drug case, the prosecution must prove the following elements:
(1) Proof that the transaction or sale took place;
(2) The presentation in court of the corpus delicti or the illicit drug as evidence. (People of the Philippines v. Dioscoro Comoso Turemutsa, G.R. No. 227497, April 10, 2019)
Republic Act No. 9165 or the Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002 provides that:
“[Any] person who has violated Sections 7, 11, 12, 14, 15, and 19, Article II of this Act, who voluntarily gives information about any violation of Sections 4, 5, 6, 8, 10, 13, and 16, Article II of this Act as well as any violation of the offenses mentioned if committed by a drug syndicate, or any information leading to the whereabouts, identities and arrest of all or any of the members thereof; and who willingly testifies against such persons as described above, shall be exempted from prosecution or punishment for the offense with reference to which his/her information of testimony were given, and may plead or prove the giving of such information and testimony in bar of such prosecution: Provided, That the following conditions concur:
(1) The information and testimony are necessary for the conviction of the persons described above;
(2) Such information and testimony are not yet in the possession of the State;
(3) Such information and testimony can be corroborated on its material points;
(4) the informant or witness has not been previously convicted of a crime involving moral turpitude, except when there is no other direct evidence available for the State other than the information and testimony of said informant or witness; and
(5) The informant or witness shall strictly and faithfully comply without delay, any condition or undertaking, reduced into writing, lawfully imposed by the State as further consideration for the grant of immunity from prosecution and punishment.
Provided, further, That this immunity may be enjoyed by such informant or witness who does not appear to be most guilty for the offense with reference to which his/her information or testimony were given: Provided, finally, That there is no direct evidence available for the State except for the information and testimony of the said informant or witness.
In the case of People of the Philippines v. Dioscoro Comoso Turemutsa (G.R. No. 227497, April 10, 2019), the Supreme Court ruled that there is no need to present the confidential informant (CI) since the testimony would merely corroborate the testimonies of those who actually witnessed the transaction. However, if the CI is also the poseur-buyer, there is a need to present him/her.
To secure conviction in a drug case, the prosecution must prove the following elements:
(1) Proof that the transaction or sale took place;
(2) The presentation in court of the corpus delicti or the illicit drug as evidence.
In the case of Rafael Zafe III v. People of the Philippines (G.R. No. 226993, May 03, 2021), the Supreme Court noted that in any event, the State’s interest in protecting the identities of confidential informants cannot outweigh the constitutional rights of the accused. Courts must be particularly vigilant when tips from a confidential informant form only the basis for the charges against the accused. The prosecution’s discretion in relying on confidential informants should always be tempered by the fundamental constitutional rights of the accused.
Related Article/s:
Click here to subscribe to our newsletter
Alburo Alburo and Associates Law Offices specializes in business law and labor law consulting. For inquiries regarding legal services, you may reach us at info@alburolaw.com, or dial us at (02)7745-4391/ 0917-5772207/ 09778050020.
All rights reserved.