2025 Bar Chair's Cases Bar Q and A Political Law - Q1

 

Von Rian Tecson, a Philippine Drug Enforcement Agency (PDEA) agent, received a tip from a confidential informant that Michael Frias and his live-in partner, Marichu Suson, were selling shabu. Authorities conducted surveillance and observed individuals frequently entering and exiting Frias' house. Acting on this information, the PDEA formed a buy-bust team.

During the operation, an undercover agent purchased shabu from Frias using marked money, after which Frias and Suson were immediately arrested. A search yielded additional sachets of shabu and the buy-bust money. The evidence was marked, inventoried in the presence of media and barangay officials, and later confirmed through forensic testing. Both the RTC and the CA found Frias guilty of violating Sections 5 and 11, Article II of R.A. No. 9165.

Frias, on appeal, argued that the prior surveillance conducted by authorities was improper and violated his constitutional rights.

Was the prior surveillance conducted by the authorities improper? Explain.

Ans:

No, the prior surveillance conducted by the authorities was proper because prior surveillance is not a requisite to a valid entrapment operation.

Jurisprudence dictates that prior surveillance is not a requisite to a valid entrapment or buy-bust operation. For so long as the rights of the accused have not been violated in the process, the arresting officers may carry out its entrapment operations and the courts will not pass on the wisdom thereof.

Here, Flexibility is a trait of good police work. The surveillance conducted and the formed buy-bust operation is with consonance with the tactical prowess that made the buy bust operation a success. Hence, prior surveillance is proper and will not affect the subsequent entrapment operation.