Republic of the Philippines

8th Judicial Region

MUNICIPAL TRIAL COURT IN CITIES
xxx
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES,
Plaintiff;
Criminal Case No. xxx
For: VIOLATION OF P.D. 1619
-versusxxx
Accused.
x-------------------------------------------x
DECISION
xxx is charged with the offense of Violation of P.D. No. 1619
on September 3, 2012. The information reads as follows:
That on or about the 14th day of March 2015, in the City of xxx,
Philippines, and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the
above-named accused, did, then and there wilfully, unlawfully and
feloniously possess one (1) transparent cellophane containing rugby, a
volatile substance that can induce or produce intoxication which
accused used in sniffing/inhaling at the time he was arrested by
apprehending officers.

When arraigned on March 30, 2015, accused, duly assisted

by counsel, pleaded not guilty to the offense charged.
At the pre-trial, the following exhibits for the prosecution
were marked as follows:
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.

Exhibit
Exhibit
Exhibit
Exhibit
Exhibit

A 1 piece bladed weaponn (reserved);

B 1 pieace cellophane containing rugby (reserved);
C Letter Request for chemical analysis dated March 14, 2015;
D Chemistry Report dated March 14, 2015;
E Certificate of Field Test Result dated March 14, 2015.

Defense marked only one document which is the Chemistry

Request for chemincal analysis as Exhibit 1.
At the trial, the prosecution presented its first witness, PO2
xxx, who testified on direct examination through his Amended
Judicial Affidavit1 and confirmed his signature as the affiant
thereof. He narrates that he has been a regular member of the
Philipine National Police (PNP) for five years and designated as
member of the Mobile Patrol Unit. He, along with PO2 xxx was
conducting routine mobile patrol along the area of Magsaysay
Blvd., xxx, to preempt any untoward incident and for police
visibility in the area. While roving in the said place, particularly at
the back of the stage at Plaza xxx, he saw a male person whom
he later knew as xxx, who was in the act of sniffing yellowish
substance commonly known as rugby, from inside a transparent
1 Records, pp. 37-41.
Page 1 of 3

cellophane. They immediately alighted from the police car to

apprehend the accused, who at first, tried to evade arrest, but
was later on caught by the two officers. Recovered from him was
a bladed weapon and one piece of transparent cellophane filled
with suspected yellowish substance known as rugby. He
identified the latter in court which was marked as Exhibit B, 2 as
well as the Request for Chemical Analysis marked as Exhibit C 3
and the signature of PO1 xxx, marked as Exhibit C-1.
Prosecutions second witness, PO2 xxx, corroborated the
testimony of PO2 xxx through his amended judicial affidavit and
identified Exhibits B, C, and C-1.
Third and final prosecution witness, PCI xxx, a forensic chemist,
conducted the laboratory examination of the specimen subject
matter of this case. He testitied that he received a Request for
Chemical Analysis dated 14 March 2015, which he identified in
court as the one marked as Exhibit C. He also testified that he
received the same one (1) piece of transparent cellophane filled
with rugby substance from PO1 xxx, R. B. and identified it in
court. The witness conducted a laboratory and qualitative
examination on the subject specimen which yielded a positive
result to the test of toluene, which is a volatile substance. He
reduced his findings in writing and issued a Chemistry Report
dated 14 March 2015, and identified the same in court as the one
marked as Exhibit D,4 including his signature thereon.
The Courts Ruling
Under Section 2 of Presidential Decree No. 1619, quoted in part
as follows:
Section 2. The use or possession of volatile substances for the
purpose of inhalation to induce or produce intoxication or any of the
conditions described in the preceding section shall be punishable by
imprisonment ranging from six months and one day to four years and a
fine ranging from six hundred to four thousand, pesos: xxx

The evidence offered by the prosecution, through the

testimony of PO2 xxx and PO2 xxx III, could only be described by
a person who actually witnessed the event that took place on
March 14, 2015. Only trustworthy witnesses could have narrated
with such detail and realism what really happened on the date
referred to. The testimony of PCI xxx, Jr. sealed the case for the
prosecution, which affirmed the fact that accused was inhaling a
volatile substance which is prohibited under the law.
2 Records, p. 128
3 Records, p. 105
4 Records, p. 106
Page 2 of 3

As has been repeatedly held, credence shall be given to the

narration of the incident by the prosecution witnesses especially
when they are police officers who are presumed to have
performed their duties in a regular manner, unless there be
evidence to the contrary. Moreover, in the absence of proof of
motive to falsely impute such crime to petitioner, the presumption
of regularity in the performance of official duty shall prevail over
the mere denial of the accused.
In the case under consideration, there is no evidence of any
improper motive on the part of the police officers who
apprehended the accused. Despite several opportunities given to
the accused for him to present evidence for his defense, he failed
to appear in court to do so; thus, prompting this court to declare a
waiver on accuseds part to present evidence and deemed the
instant case ripe for decision.
WHEREFORE, this Court finds accused xxx, GUILTY beyond
reasonable doubt for Violation of Section 2 of P.D. No. 1619, and
hereby sentences him to a straight imprisonment of six months
and one day to one year and to pay a fine of P4,000.00, with
subsidiary imprisonment in case of insolvency.
SO ORDERED.
IN CHAMBERS, xxx, November 28, 2016.

xxx
Presiding Judge

Page 3 of 3