Poseur-buyers in drug cases

Joe Pallugna

MUST the poseur-buyer be presented in prosecution of illegal drugs cases?

The question that confronts both the prosecution and the defense in illegal drugs cases is the need to present the poseur-buyer during trial.

More often than not, the police and the prosecution are not bent in presenting the poseur-buyer during trials of illegal drugs cases because they allegedly want to protect the identity of their “asset” as they would be harmed if their identities are disclosed.

But when is the non-presentation of the poseur-buyer fatal for the prosecution and would result to the acquittal of the accused?

This was answered by the Supreme Court in the case of People of the Philippuines versus Flordilina Ramos (G.R. No. 206906, July 25, 2016) where the High Court ruled: “We have previously ruled that failure to present the poseur-buyer is fatal to the prosecution’s case under the following circumstances:

“(1) if there is no person other than the poseur-buyer who witnessed the drug transaction;

“(2) if there is no explanation for the non-appearance of the poseur-buyer and reliable witnesses who could testify in his place;

“(3) if the witnesses other than the poseur-buyer did not hear the conversation between the pusher and the poseur-buyer; and

“(4) if the accused vehemently denies the selling any prohibited drugs coupled with the inconsistent testimonies of the arresting officers or coupled with the possibility that there exist reasons to believe that the arresting officers had motives to testify falsely against the appellant.”

This is the case where the poseur-buyer went to approach the pusher alone. He then later turned over the purchased sachet of drugs to the policemen who observed the drug transaction ten meters away while they were on board a tinted van. The circumstances surrounding the arrest needed for the presentation of the poseur-buyer to testify in court during trial. Failing in that, the accused must be acquitted.

There had been arguments by the prosecution that the presumption of regularity in the performance of their duties as police officers must prevail. However, the High Tribunal has this to say in this particular case which ruling has to apply in all other cases: “More importantly, the presumption of regularity cannot prevail over the constitutional presumption of innocence and cannot, by itself, constitute proof of guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. The presumption of regularity is just a presumption disputable by contrary proof; when challenged by evidence, it cannot serve as binding proof.”

I am making some emphasis of these rules because of the increasing number of arrests involving illegal drugs. While we laud the police in all their efforts to eradicate drug abuse, I am also earnest in defending the accused who were subjected to illegal arrests and searches.

(Joe Pallugna is a lawyer based in Cagayan de Oro. E-mail: ajpallugna@gmail.com)