Concepts: People v.

Doria A buy-bust operation is a form of entrapment employed by peace officers as an effective way of apprehending a criminal in the act of the commission of an offense The instigator practically induces the would-be accused into the commission of the offense and himself becomes a co-principal. In entrapment, ways and means are resorted to by the peace officer for the purpose of trapping and capturing the lawbreaker in the execution of his criminal plan. Entrapment is no bar to the prosecution and conviction of the lawbreaker. Entrapment in the Philippines is not a defense available to the accused. It is instigation that is a defense and is considered an absolutory cause. There is no rule of law which requires that in "buy-bust" operations there must be a simultaneous exchange of the marked money and the prohibited drug between the poseur-buyer and the pusher. Again, the decisive fact is that the poseur-buyer received the marijuana from the accused-appellant.

If there is no showing that the person who effected the warrantless arrest had, in his own right, knowledge of facts implicating the person arrested to the perpetration of a criminal offense, the arrest is legally objectionable Plain View Doctrine Objects falling in plain view of an officer who has a right to be in the position to have that view are subject to seizure even without a search warrant and may be introduced in evidence.[121] The "plain view" doctrine applies when the following requisites concur: (a) the law enforcement officer in search of the evidence has a prior justification for an intrusion or is in a position from which he can view a particular area; (b) the discovery of the evidence in plain view is inadvertent; (c) it is immediately apparent to the officer that the item he observes may be evidence of a crime, contraband or otherwise subject to seizure.[122] The law enforcement officer must lawfully make an initial intrusion or properly be in a position from which he can particularly view the area.[123] In the course of such lawful intrusion, he came inadvertently across a piece of evidence incriminating the accused.[124] The object must be open to eye and hand[125] and its discovery inadvertent.

People v. Gerente

Personal knowledge on commission of crime by policemen makes warrantless arrest effected, likewise lawful.

Nolasco v. Pano whenever a Search Warrant has been issued by one Court, or Branch, and a criminal prosecution is initiated in another Court, or Branch, as a result of the service of the Search Warrant, the SEARCH WARRANT CASE should be consolidated with the criminal case for orderly procedure. The later criminal case is more substantial than the Search Warrant proceeding, and the Presiding Judge in the criminal case should have the right to act on petitions to exclude evidence unlawfully obtained.