Professional Documents
Culture Documents
COURT OF APPEALS
MANILA
3
STATEMENT OF FACTS
4
plastic sachet containing shabu and handed it to PO1 Pasamonte.
Valente thereafter put the money on his right front pocket. After
inspecting the plastic sachet, PO1 Pasamonte put the same in his
pocket and reached for his phone to execute the pre-arranged signal.
1
Exhibit G of the records.
2
Exhibit H of the records.
3
Exhibit I of the records.
5
He recalled that on August 19, 2011 at around 3:00 pm, he was
lying at the swing of their neighbors house when he noticed a patrol
arrived at the back of his house.4 After about two minutes, and while
he was still lying on the swing, he heard a dog bark on two men who
were about seven meters away. He noticed that they were holding a
baby armalite and a short firearm.5 He recognized one of these men
as PO1 Elison Pasamonte. Thereafter, said men asked permission to
pass by in going to an adjacent place, who then surrounded Valentes
house.6 He later saw Chief Retotar approaching from one side.
Likewise, he also saw P/Insp. Baltazar.7
4
Testimony of Elpidio Valente, TSN, September 9, 2015, p. 5
5
Id.
6
TSN, September 9, 2015, p. 5-6
7
Id.
8
TSN, September 9, 2015, pp. 6-7
9
TSN, September 9, 2015, p. 7
10
TSN, September 9, 2015, p. 8
11
TSN, September 9, 2015, pp. 8-9
12
TSN, September 9, 2015, p. 10
6
not be able to take everything from you, the next time, I will put you
to jail because before this, you were acquitted on a certain case.13
ASSIGNMENT OF ERRORS
I
THE HONORABLE TRIAL COURT ERRED IN CONVICTING THE
ACCUSED OF THE CRIME CHARGED DESPITE THE
PROSECUTIONS FAILURE TO PROVE HIS GUILT BEYOND
REASONABLE DOUBT
II
THE HONORABLE COURT ERRED IN CONVICTING THE
ACCUSED DESPITE PATENT IRREGULARITIES IN THE
PRESERVATION OF THE INTEGRITY AND EVIDENTIARY
VALUE OF THE SEIZED DRUGS.
III
THE HONORABLE TRIAL COURT ERRED IN RELYING ON THE
PRESUMPTION OF REGULARITY IN THE PERFORMANCE OF
DUTY OF THE ARRESTING OFFICERS
13
Id.
14
Testimony of Dante Tabin, TSN, October 14, 2016, p. 4
15
TSN, October 14, 2016, pp. 5-6
16
TSN, October 14, 2016, pp. 6-7
17
TSN, October 14, 2016, p. 8
7
ARGUMENTS
I
THE HONORABLE TRIAL COURT ERRED IN CONVICTING
THE ACCUSED OF THE CRIME CHARGED DESPITE THE
PROSECUTIONS FAILURE TO PROVE HIS GUILT BEYOND
REASONABLE DOUBT
18
People vs. Quinao, 269 SCRA 495
19
People vs. Jose Clara y Buhain, G.R. No. 195528, July 24, 2013
20
People vs. Capuno, G.R. No. 185715, January 19, 2011
8
It is well-settled that, except when the accused vehemently
denies selling prohibited drugs and there are material inconsistencies
in the testimonies of the arresting officers, or there are reasons to
believe that the arresting officers had motives to falsely testify against
the accused, or that the informant himself acted as the poseur-buyer
and the only one who actually witnessed the entire transaction, the
testimony of the informant may be dispensed with as it will merely
be corroborative of the apprehending officers' eyewitness accounts.21
Atty. Cajigal
(On Cross-examination)
Q: It was only you and the asset who went their house.
Is that right?
A: Yes, sir.22
xxx
21
People vs. Andres, G.R. No. 193184, February 7, 2011
22
Testimony of PO2 Elison Pasamonte, TSN, July 8, 2013, p. 13
9
A: Yes, sir.
A: Yes, sir.23
xxx
A: Yes, sir.
xxx
Atty. Cajigal
(On Cross-examination)
A: Yes, sir.
23
Testimony of PO2 Elison Pasamonte, TSN, July 8, 2013, pp. 13-14
24
TSN, July 8, 2013, p.14
10
A: Yes, sir.
A: Yes, sir.25
xxx
Court Stenographer
(Reading the question)
A: Yes, sir.26
xxx
Apart from the accuseds unpleasant record with the police due
to his two previous acquittals on the drug-related cases filed against
him, the police resented him and vowed to get him by all means.
Impelled by improper motives, the non-presentation of the informant
raises doubts as to the integrity of the statements of the prosecution
witnesses who were all members of the Regional Anti-Illegal Drugs
Special Operations Task Group (RAIDSOTG PRO-1). The absence of
corroborating evidence makes the statements of the police officers
mere self-serving that cannot be relied upon with full credibility.
25
TSN, February 3, 2014, p. 20
26
TSN, February 3, 2014, p. 22
27
People vs. Del Mundo, G.R. No. 169141, December 6, 2006
28
G.R. No. 137348, June 21, 2004
11
The Court is sharply aware of the compelling
considerations why confidential informants are usually
not presented by the prosecution. One is the need to hide
their identity and preserve their invaluable service to the
police. Another is the necessity to protect them from
being objects or targets of revenge by the criminals they
implicate once they become known. All these
considerations, however, have to be balanced with the
right of an accused to a fair trial.
12
the crime charged. Unless of course, there was really no informant to
begin with and that no transaction actually took place to justify the
alleged operation.
Atty. Cajigal
(On Cross-examination)
13
Q: Of course, he approached this Baltazar when the
asset came to your office, is that right?
A: Yes, sir.
A: Yes, sir.
A: Yes, sir.30
xxx
A: Yes, sir.
A: Yes, sir.
A: Yes, sir.
14
xxx
31
TSN, July 8, 2013, pp. 9-10
32
People vs. Elly Naelga, G.R. No. 171018, September 9, 2009
15
team to the place of transaction. This fact was even confirmed by PO3
Ramos during his cross-examination, thus:
Atty. Cajigal
(On Cross-examination)
Atty. Cajigal
(On Cross-examination)
xxx
33
TSN, February 3, 2014, p. 13
34
TSN, February 3, 2014, p. 14
16
that deliberation took place between the buy-bust team and
Currimao Police before proceeding to the place of transaction such
that instructions as to where each team must position themselves and
the role that each will be playing were properly disseminated. In fact,
it is even the Chief of Police Currimao himself who personally
affirmed their willingness to help with the operation as testified by
PO3 Ramos in the following:
Atty. Cajigal
(On Cross-examination)
A: Yes, sir.
A: Yes, sir.
A: Yes, sir.35
xxx
Yet, in the same breath, PO3 Ramos cannot even recall how
many men from Currimao Police came along in the operation nor at
least made an attempt to give an estimate of which. As can be
gleaned in the transcript of records, PO3 Ramos gave conflicting
testimonies as to the presence of Currimaos Chief of Police during
the operation.
Atty. Cajigal
(On Cross-examination)
17
Q: You did not know the Chief of Police of Currimao,
Ilocos Norte?
A: I know, sir.
Q: Was he there?
A: Yes, sir.36
xxx
xxx
xxx
Atty. Cajigal
(On Cross-examination)
36
TSN, February 3, 2014, p. 10
37
TSN, February 3, 2014, p. 14
38
TSN, February 3, 2014, p. 15
18
A: Only in our team, sir, my companions in
PAIDSOTG.
A: Yes, sir.
xxx
Court
Atty. Cajigal
xxx
39
TSN, February 3, 2014, p. 15
40
TSN, February 3, 2014, p. 16
19
Q: Your vehicle and the vehicle of the Currimao
policemen, is that right, were parked there?
A: Yes, sir.
A: Yes, sir.
20
area of the operation at the interior together with
the policemen of Currimao, is that correct?
xxx
A: Yes, sir.
xxx
41
TSN, February 3, 2014, pp. 17-18
42
TSN, February 3, 2014, pp. 19-20
21
Fourth, the prosecutions narration as to the actual
apprehension of the accused likewise appears dubious and tainted
with inconsistency. As sworn by PO3 Ramos in their Joint Affidavit43,
he immediately handcuffed Valente and thereafter asked him if he
had the license or authority to sell dangerous drugs to which the
latter responded in the negative. While this declaration remained
consistent at the earlier part of his direct examination, a conflicting
version was nevertheless laid down at the latter part and even during
his cross-examination, thus:
Pros. Pascua
(On Direct Examination)
xxx
Atty. Cajigal
(On Cross-examination)
43
Exhibit A-1 of the records.
44
TSN, February 3, 2014, pp. 8-9
22
Q: Alright, after you catch him, what did you do?
xxx
Atty. Cajigal
(On Cross-examination)
xxx
A: Yes, sir.
A: Yes, sir.
45
TSN, February 3, 2014, pp. 29-30
46
TSN, February 3, 2014, p. 26
23
A: Only Pasamonte ran after I also ran towards the
suspect and that was the time he ran also, sir.47
xxx
II
THE HONORABLE COURT ERRED IN CONVICTING THE
ACCUSED DESPITE PATENT IRREGULARITIES IN THE
PRESERVATION OF THE INTEGRITY AND EVIDENTIARY
VALUE OF THE SEIZED DRUGS.
47
TSN, February 3, 2014, pp. 29
48
People vs. Sodsod, 404 SCRA 39
49
People vs. Lim, 386 SCRA 581
24
(2) the corpus delicti or the illicit drug was presented as evidence;
and (3) that the buyer and seller were identified.50 The dangerous
drug is the very corpus delicti of the offense.51
50
People vs. Bandang, G.R. No. 151314, 3 June 2004
51
People vs. Simbahon, 449 Phil. 74, 81 (2003)
52
People vs. Mendoza, G.R. No. 192432, June 23, 2014
25
In the case at bar, it is submitted that the above-mentioned
procedure was not shown to have been complied with by the
members of the buy-bust team, and nothing on record suggests that
they had extended reasonable efforts to comply with the said
statutory requirement. The deficiency is patent from the fact that the
inventory was neither witnessed nor signed by any representative
of the DOJ or media or by any elected public official as shown by
the Receipt of Properties/Articles Seized53, Photograph54, Joint
Affidavit and testimonies of the witnesses in Court.
53
Exhibit F of the records.
54
Exhibits L and M of the records.
55
G.R. No. 189330, November 28, 2012
56
G.R. No. 192432, June 23, 2014
26
The consequences of the failure of the arresting lawmen
to comply with the requirements of Section 21(1), supra,
were dire as far as the Prosecution was concerned.
Without the insulating presence of the representative
from the media or the Department of Justice, or any
elected public official during the seizure and marking of
the sachets of shabu, the evils of switching, "planting" or
contamination of the evidence that had tainted the buy-
busts conducted under the regime of RA No. 6425
(Dangerous Drugs Act of 1972) again reared their ugly
heads as to negate the integrity and credibility of the
seizure and confiscation of the sachets of shabu that were
evidence herein of thecorpus delicti, and thus adversely
affected the trustworthiness of the incrimination of the
accused. Indeed, the insulating presence of such
witnesses would have preserved an unbroken chain of
custody.
57
People vs. Orteza, G.R. No. 173501, July 31, 2007; People vs. Nazareno, G.R. No. 174771, September
11, 2007; People vs. Santos, Jr., G.R. No. 175593, October 17, 2007
58
People vs. Garcia, G.R. No. 173480, February 25, 2009
27
laid down by R.A No. 9156 is not excused. This inexcusable non-
compliance effectively invalidates their seizure of and custody over
the seized drugs, thus, compromising the identity and integrity of the
same. We resolve the doubt in the integrity and identity of the corpus
delicti in favor of appellant as every fact necessary to constitute the
crime must be established by proof beyond reasonable doubt.
Considering that the prosecution failed to present the required
quantum of evidence, appellant's acquittal is in order.59
The chain of custody was not duly established by the prosecution.
59
People vs. Ranilo Dela Cruz, G.R. No. 177222, October 29, 2008
60
Dangerous Drugs Board Regulation No. 1, Series of 2002, Sec. 1 (b)
61
People vs. Remegio, G.R. No. 189277, December 5, 2012
62
Malilin vs. People, G. R. No. 172953, April 30, 2008; People vs. Almodiel, G.R. No. 200951, September
5, 2012
28
In the Joint Affidavit63 executed by PO1 Pasamonte, PO2 Ramos
and PO2 Pola, it was admitted that inventory, markings and photograph
of seized items were made at the place of arrest as witnessed at all times by
the accused. As police officers equipped with knowledge and years of
experience on the proper handling of drug cases, they are indeed
aware that describing with particularity the manner on how
markings were made as early as in the execution of a joint affidavit
immediately after the operation is vital in strengthening their case.
However, this has been carelessly disregarded in the instant case as
the statements made in their Joint Affidavit were nothing but mere
general aversions that fail to describe in particular as to who among
them made the markings and what letters or characters were in fact
written on the seized plastic sachets.
63
Exhibit A-1 of the records.
64
Exhibit F of the records.
65
Exhibit H of the records.
29
After that, she sealed the specimen by placing a
masking tape. And on the other edge of it, labeled the
same with her personal markings. And turned over the
specimen to the Evidence Custodian for safekeeping until
the same was submitted to Court during the Preliminary
Conference. [Emphasis supplied]
Pros. Pascua:
66
TSN, June 10, 2013, p. 25
30
disposed of at the close of the criminal proceedings, thereby
forestalling switching, planting or contamination of evidence.67
67
Candelaria vs. People, G.R. No. 198804, January 22, 2014
68
Lopez vs. People, G.R. No. 172953, April 30, 2008
31
III
THE HONORABLE TRIAL COURT ERRED IN RELYING ON
THE PRESUMPTION OF REGULARITY IN THE PERFORMANCE
OF OFFICIAL DUTY OF THE ARRESTING OFFICERS
69
G.R. No. 175593, October 17, 2007
70
People vs. Garcia, G.R. No. 173480, February 25, 2009
71
Testimony of PO2 Elison Pasamonte, TSN July 8, 2013, pp. 6-7
32
Ill-motive on the part of the law enforcers stains the legitimacy of the
buy-bust operation.
72
People vs. Garcia, G.R. No. 173480, February 25, 2009
73
People v. Sembrano, G. R. No. 185848, 16 August 2010, 628 SCRA 328, 342 citing People v. Lamado,
G. R. No. 185278, 13 March 2009, 581 SCRA 544, 552 and People v. Remerata, G. R. No. 147230, 449
Phil. 813, 822 (2003).
74
Criminal Case No. 4247-17 (For Violation of Sec. 11, Art, II of RA 9165) , RTC Branch 17 Batac City
75
Decision dated July 30, 2012 RTC Branch 17-Batac City (Criminal Case No. 4247-17)
33
also led the buy-bust team of Baltazar to the place of transaction.
Retotars presence during the operation was admitted by Ramos in
his testimony, to wit:
Atty. Cajigal
(On Cross-Examination)
A: I know, sir.
Q: Was he there?
A: Yes, sir.
xxx
A: Yes, sir.
A: Yes, sir.
A: Yes, sir.77
xxx
76
TSN, February 3, 2014, p. 10
77
TSN, February 3, 2014, p. 14
34
By willingly helping Baltazars team in apprehending the
accused, one can only surmise that Retotar was driven by his
frustration in falsely implicating the accused for the crime charged
especially when his previous acquittal in 2003 was not because he
was guilty beyond reasonable doubt but due to the irregularities in
the arrest. This resentment is obvious when the accused testified the
following exchanges between him and Retotar, to wit:
Atty. Cajigal
(On Direct Examination)
Q: And did you talk to Retotar why he was the one in-
charge of what action they will take against you?
A: Yes, sir.
Q: And what did he tell you and why did they arrest
you?
xxx
From the foregoing, it cannot escape our mind that the subject
buy-bust operation was tainted with Retotars personal vendetta
against the accused. His annoyance with Valentes 2003 acquittal is
enough reason for Retotar to willingly help in his capture. More so
because accused was acquitted not on the basis of his culpability but
rather due to the irregularity of the operation itself. Hence, the police
officers do not enjoy the presumption afforded to them for there is
obviously an ill feeling and animosity between Retotar and the
accused at the time of the arrest.
78
TSN, September 9, 2015, p. 10
35
All told, the trial court would not have any clear factual basis to
sustain regularity in the performance of police functions, thus leading
to the application of the EQUIPOSE RULE, thus:
PRAYER
79
People vs. Sapal, G.R. No. 124526. March 17, 2000
80
People vs. De Guzman, 194 SCRA 601, 606
36
MCLE No. IV-0017539-04/19/2013
NOTICE
81
Pursuant to Section 11, Rule 13 of the 1997 Rules on Civil Procedure
37