Dear PAO,

I am a police officer and acted as the poseur-buyer in one of our anti-illegal drugs operations. During trial, I was the only one who testified because other members of the buy-bust team retired from service. Although our operation was successful, the accused was later on acquitted by the court. According to the court, the prosecution failed to pass the “objective test.” What is this so-called objective test in relation to a buy-bust?

Ryan

Dear Ryan,

To answer your query, we refer you to the resolution of the Supreme Court in People v. Ken Cola Ali, GR 250643, Sept. 14, 2022, where its First Division explained the concept of “objective test,” thus:

“To determine the validity of a buy-bust operation, the Court has consistently applied the ‘objective test’. The ‘objective test’ requires the details of the purported transaction during the buy-bust operation to be clearly and adequately shown, i.e., the initial contact between the poseur-buyer and the pusher, the offer to purchase the drug, and the promise or payment of the consideration, payment using the buy-bust or marked money, up to the consummation of the sale by the delivery of the illegal drugs subject of the sale whether to the informant alone or the police officer... It is not enough to show that there was an exchange of money and illegal drugs. The details that led to such exchange must be clearly and adequately accounted for. Failing in which will certainly cast a doubt on the veracity of the whole buybust operation.

“In cases wherein the police officer was only a poseur buyer and without personal knowledge of the whole buy-bust operation, this Court held that the prosecution failed to pass the ‘objective test’. It was ruled that the poseur buyer is considered to be a delivery person and his testimony as to the material points of the buy-bust operation can only be regarded as hearsay and cannot be given weight...

“As in this case, the testimony of PO2 Ramos, alone, did not paint a complete picture of the whole buy-bust operation and it failed to satisfy the requirements needed to be established to pass the ‘objective test’. Aside from the actual sale of the drugs, PO2 Ramos’ knowledge of the operation are all second hand information from SPO1 Ybanez. He was unable to testify as to the asset’s offer to purchase, accused-appellant’s acceptance of such offer or willingness to sell, and the negotiation as to the amount to buy and the consideration therefor.

“There being no valid buy-bust operation, the arrest of accusedappellant cannot be considered as lawful. The failure to carry out a legitimate buy-bust operation rendered the warrantless arrest constitutionally infirm. Consequently, the alleged seized items from accused-appellant, in violation of her right against unreasonable searches and seizures, are considered as fruits of a poisonous tree and are inadmissible in evidence. With the inadmissibility of the evidence, conviction of accused-appellant cannot be had for the alleged illegal drugs are the very corpus delicti of the crime charge.”

Based on the foregoing, it is clear that the “objective test” requires the prosecution to paint a clear and complete picture of the whole buy-bust starting from the initial contact of the poseurbuyer and the accused up to its consummation. Proving that there was an exchange of marked money and illegal drugs is not sufficient. The details prior to such exchanges must be clearly and adequately established, failure of which will cast doubt on the veracity of the whole buy-bust. After all, the right of the accused to be presumed innocent until proven guilty is a constitutionally protected right. The burden lies with the prosecution to prove the accused’s guilt beyond reasonable doubt by establishing each and every element of the crime.

We hope that we were able to answer your queries. This advice is based solely on the facts you have narrated and our appreciation of the same. Our opinion may vary when other facts are changed or elaborated.