NALUPTA, JEREMIAH GO2 LEGAL

RESEARCH
11780770 LEGAL
MEMORANDUM

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES,

Plaintiff, CRIM.CASE NO. SC-

19796

FOR VIOLATION OF R.A.

9165

-versus-

EDEN ,

Sitio San Miguel, Brgy. Duhat, Sta Cruz, Laguna

Detained at MPS Sta. Cruz, Laguna

Accused.

x---------------------------------------------------------------/

MEMORANDUM FOR PLAINTIFF

Plaintiff, by counsel, respectfully states that:

STATEMENT OF THE CASE

Plaintiff herein, Sta. Cruz. Municipal Police Station (Sta. Cruz, MPS),
filed the complaint for the Violation of Sec. 111 and 122 of ART II, R.A.
9165 also known as the Comprehensive Dangerous Drug Act of 20023
against accused EDEN. The above-named accused, without being
authorized by law, did then and there willfully, unlawfully and
feloniously have in her possession, custody and control three (3) pieces of
1
Sec.11. Possession of Dangerous Drugs.
2
Sec. 12. Possession of Equipment, Instrument, Apparatus and Other Paraphernalia
for Dangerous Drugs.
3
Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002.
small heat-sealed transparent plastic sachets of metamphetamine
hydrochloride (Shabu), weighing a total of 0.23 grams, a dangerous drug.
Defendant, in her statement averred that the said dangerous drug was
planted inside the bag of the defendant’s child and that the police coerced
them in opening their door.

STATEMENT OF THE FACTS

1. By virtue of a search warrant procured and requested by

members of Sta. Cruz, MPS (PO3 Reyes & PO1 Candeza) on
July 1, 2016 from the Regional Trial Court, Fourth Judicial
Region, signed by Executive Judge, Hon. Agripino G. Morga,
after having been examined information by concerened residents
of Brgy. Duhat, Santa Cruz Laguna, witnesses, intel operatives
and confidential assets during the test-buy mission. Said order
was granted on the grounds that there exists a probable cause for
Violation of R.A. 9165, which has been committed and there is a
good sufficient reason to believe that EDEN is involved in illegal
possesion and control of undetermined amount of
Metamphetamine Hydrochloride known as shabu, drug
paraphernalia and other proceeds of the crime, which she is
keeping and controlling in her address at Sitio San Miguel, Brgy.
Duhat, Santa Cruz, Laguna.
2. On July 9, 2016 at about 02:25 AM at Barangay Duhay Sta. Cruz
Laguna, in the residence of suspect EDEN, Police Officers from
the Sta. Cruz, MPS led by PCI Soriano, implemented the serve of
Search Warrant nr. L446(16) issued by Hon. Judge Morga in
relation to OPLAN LAMBAT SIBAT/ONE-TIME-BIG-TIME
against EDEN, the suspect. Upon searching, recovered from her
possesision and confiscated the following: Three (3) pieces of
heat-sealed transparent plastic sachets containing white
crystalline substance suspected as shabu weighing more or less
0.34 grams, and One (1) opnened end heat-sealed transparent
plastic sachet containing suspected shabu residue.
 3. During the arrest, PO1 Medrano informed the suspect of her
rights according to the law, asked her name, in which the suspect
responded that she was, EDEN.
4. After the arrest and the search of the suspect’s abode, the Sta.
Cruz, MPS, in front of witnesses, the Media and Barangay
Officials, placed into inventory the said pieces of evidences
aforementioned. Pursuant to the R.A 10640 “AN ACT TO
FURTHER STRENGTHEN THE ANTI-DRUG CAMPAIGN
OF THE GOVERNMENT, AMENDING FOR THE PURPOSE
SECTION 21 OF REPUBLIC ACT NO. 9165, OTHERWISE
KNOWN AS THE “COMPREHENSIVE DANGEROUS
DRUGS ACT OF 2002″.4
5. The suspect, EDEN together with the confiscated evidence were
brought to the Regional Crime Laboratory Office 4-A.5
6. Request for Laboratory Examination was made by the Acting
Chief of Police of Sta. Cruz, MPS, on July 9, 2016 at 06:40 AM.
Consequently, a Request for Drug Test Examination was also
requested as a Standard Operating Procedure to be conducted to
the suspect, EDEN. 6
7. On 02:45 PM, July 9, 2016 the Laboratory Examination was
completed, whereas the evidence specimens submitted for the
determination of the presence of dangerous drugs, tested positive
for the presence of Methamphetamine hydrochloride (Shabu), a
dangerous drug. 7
8. The Receipt of Property Seized/Confiscated dated July 9, 2016
include the following: Three (3) pieces heat-sealed transparent
containing white crystalline substance suspected as shabu,
marked with JS-1, JS-2 and JS3; One (1) piece open-end
transparent plastic sachet containing shabu residue marked with
JS-4; and One (1) piece colorde brown coin purse marked with

4
GUIDELINES ON THE IMPLEMENTING RULES AND REGULATIONS (IRR) OF
SECTION 21 OF REPUBLIC ACT NO. 9165 AS AMENDED BY REPUBLIC ACT
NO. 10640
5
Section 21(2) of Republic Act No. 9165, as amended by Republic Act No. 10640
6
Supra note 5
7
Supra note 5
 JS-5. This was subsribed and sworn by PCI Soriano as the Acting
Chief of Police of Sta. Cruz, MPS. 8
9. An Investigation Data Form was accomplished on July 11, 2016
at 05:15 PM, whereas it contained that:
COMPLAINANTS are Sta. Cruz Municipal Station,
RESPONDENT/S is/are EDEN, female, 38 years old, single,
jobless, resident of Sitio San Miguel, Brgy. Duhat Sta. Cruz,
Laguna,
LAW/S VIOLATED: “Violation of Sec. 11 and 12 of ART 2
R.A. 9165”, WITNESS/ES are PO1 Edison Medrano & PO1
Jonel Sanchez, both are members of Sta. Cruz, MPS
DATE & TIME OF COMMISSION is at 02:25 AM of July
9, 2016
PLACE OF COMMISSION is at Sitio San Miguel, Brgy.
Duhat. Sta. Cruz, Laguna.

This information being certified true and correct by Joel C.

Quidayan, Assistant Provincial Prosecutor.

10. Police Officers of Sta. Cruz, MPS PO1 Edison Medrano and
PO1 Jonel Sanchez, in their Joint Sworn Statement dated July 11,
2016 narrated the events or the facts that transpired prior to and
during the search made on July 9, 2016, in summary:
a.) “Na, matapos pong makatanggap ng mga impormasyon at
report mula sa aming confidential asset lalong lalo na sa
mamamayan ng Brgy. Duhat, Santa Cruz, Laguna ang talamak
na bentahan ng illegal na droga na kilala shabu sa nasabing
lugar. Ang aming intel operatives ay nagsagawa ng
pagmamanman at pangagalap ng impormasyon at napag-
alaman naming si EDEN ay nangangalaga at nagbebenta ng
ipinagbabawal na gamut na kung tawagin ay shabu.”
b.) “… ang aming intel operatives ay nagsagawa ng isang test-buy
at matapos makabili ng hinhihinalang shabu, ito ay aming
pinasuri sa Laguna Provincial Crime Laboratory at matapos
masuri ay napag-alaman namin na ito ay pinaglalalaman ng
8
Section 21(2)(5) of Republic Act No. 9165, as amended by Republic Act No. 10640
 Methamphethamin Hydrochloride na mas kilala sa tawag na
shabu. At matapos nito ay nag apply kami ng search warrant sa
Presiding Judge ng Branch 32 ng Regional Trial Court San
Pablo City Laguna at ito ay naaprubahan”
c.) “Na, nitong ika-01:40 ng madaling araw ng July 9, 2016, ay
nakipag coordinate kami sa PDEA at binigyan kami ng control
no. 10005-072016-0409. Matapos nito, kami ay tinipon ng
aming hepe kasama ang media at opisyal ng barangay upang
planuhin ang isasagawang implementation ng search warrant.
Kami po ay inatasan na mag search ng nasabing bahay”
d.) “… agad kaming nagtungo sa bahay ng nasabing nagtutulak ng
droga at pagdating naming doon sa nsabing bahay ngunit
nakasarado po ito, kung kayat pinilit itong kinatok, na maya
maya pa ay binuksan ng isang babae ang pintuan at noong
tanungin ko ang kanyang pangalan ay nagpakilalang si EDEN
na agad naming pinabasa sa kanya ang aming dalang search
warrant at pagkatapos niyang mabasa ay agad niya naman
kaming pinayagan na magsagawa ng pag search sa kanyang
bahay.
e.) “Na, habang kami ay kasalukuyang nagsasagawa ng pag
search ay nakuha ko (PO1 Sanchez) sa bag na nakasabit sa
dingding ng sala ang isang (1) pirasong colored brown na coin
pouch at aking tinignan at buksan ito ay naglalaman ng (3)
pirasong small heat-seal transparent plastic sachet na
naglalaman ng malakristal na butil na hinihinalang shabu at
agad ko po naman itong minarkahan, isang (1) pirasong open-
end transparent plastic sachet na may pinaghihinalaang may
shabu residue na minarkahan ko, at ang isang colored brwon
na coin pouch”
f.) “pagkatapos ang pag search sa nasabing bahay ay agad
naming inimbentaryo ang mga nakuhang ebidensya kaharap
ang media at barangay opisyal”
g.) “pagaktapos ay inaresto na po namin ang suspect at habang
siya ay aming inaaresto sinabi ko (PO1 Medrano) sa kanya ang
kanyang mga karapatan na naayon sa ating umiiral na saligang
batas at tinanong ang kanyang buong pangalan …na agad po
 naming dinala sa aming himpilan para maimbestigahan at
magawan ng request ang mga ebidensiyang nakuha”

11.Contrary to the sworn statement of the Police Officers of Sta.

Cruz, MPS, EDEN in her statement/salaysay alleged that the
policemen used force and planted evidence to the bag of her
child, to wit:
a.) “… ukol po sa nangyaring pagpasok ho nila sa loob po ng
aming bahay noong ika-siyam na taong kasalukuyan (7-9-
2016), bandang alas tres ng madaling araw (3:00am).
Kasalukuyan pong natutulog po kaming mag-anak o pamilya,
na hind po namin namalayan na may kumakatok sa amung
pintuan na hindi namin alam, subalit po na may kumalabog sa
bintana nagising po ako at narinig ko na nagsalita na isa sa
pulis na nagsasabing pag hindi po sila pinagbuksan ng pinto
ay dadalhind daw po nila ang kambing at nagbanta na
babasagin ang salamin ng bintana at sisipain ang pintuan ng
aming bahay”
b.) “…nang aking buksan ang pintuan ay bigla po nagpasukan at
nahalughog po sila sa kuwarto ko at sa kabuuan ng aming
bahay. Subalit wala po silang nakuhang pilit nilang ibibintang
sa akin na shabu sa aming tahanan. At pagkatapos nuon may
nakita ho silang isang bag na ginagaminit ng aking anak na
estudyante na si, Alexander Magic. May tatlong pulis na isa-
isang lumapit sa bag pero wala ho silang nakitang ebidensya
(shabu). Subalit may isang pulis na simpleng lumapit sa
nasasabing bag at simpleng nilapitan at simpleng inilagay sa
bag ho ang ebidensya (shabu) nakita ko po at ng aking mga
anak kung paano ho nila inilagay ang nasabing ebidensya
(shabu) sa bag ho ng aking anak.”
12.In the Actions Taken during Inquest Disposition, it was
recommended that the case was for FOR FILING:
INFORMATIONS for: VIOLATION OF SECTION 11 & 12,
ARTICLE II OF RA 9165
13. Evidences filed for Violation of Section 11 of RA 9165 were the
three (3) pieces of small heeat-sealed transparent plastic sachet of
 methamphetamine hydrochloride, weighing a total 0.23 grams;
while
14. Evidences filed for Violation of Section 12 of RA 9165 were one
(1) piece of unsealed transparent plastic sachet with shabu
residue and one (1) piece of improvised tooter with shabu
residue.

ISSUES

Given the foregoing facts and circumstances, the following issues are
presented for discussion:

1. Whether or not EDEN may be held guilty for the commission of

the crime of VIOLATION OF SECTION 11 & 12 OF REPUBLIC
ACT NO. 9165?
2. Whether or not the Sta. Cruz, MPS made a lawful arrest in using
force and coercion?
3. Whether or not there is proof and whether the allegation that
evidence was planted on the bag of EDEN’s child deserves
cognizance?

ARGUMENTS

I. EDEN is guilty for the commission of the crime of VIOLATION

OF SECTION 11 & 12 OF REPUBLIC ACT NO. 9165

1. Sections 11 and 12 of the Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of

2002,9 violated by EDEN is under the Special Penal Law of the
Revised Penal Code. When mere violation or culpa of Special
Penal Laws constitues to a crime, the intent of an act or the dolo is
immaterial. As a rule, when the crime is punished by a special law,
intent to commit the crime is not necessary. It is sufficient that the
offender has the intent to perpetrate the act prohibited by the
special law. 10
2. Section 11 of the RA 9165 provides “Possession of Dangerous
Drugs. - The penalty of life imprisonment to death and a fine
ranging from Five hundred thousand pesos (P500,000.00) to Ten

9
Supra note 1 & 2
10
Luis B. Reyes, The Revised Penal Code: Articles 1-113 Book 1 of The Revised
Penal Code: Criminal Law (15th ed., 2002), p. 36-39
 million pesos (P10,000,000.00) shall be imposed upon any person,
who, unless authorized by law, shall possess any dangerous drug in
the following quantities, regardless of the degree of purity thereof:
…(5) 50 grams or more of methamphetamine hydrochloride or
"shabu"”11
3. The search conducted by the Sta. Cruz, MPS on EDEN’s home
resulted in the discovery of specimens of dangerous drugs, to wit:
Three (3) pieces heat-sealed transparent plastic sachets containing
white crystalline substance suspected as Shabu weighing more or
less 0.34 grams.
4. As expressly prohibited by the Special Penal Law, this constituted
to a violation of Section 11, Possesion of Dangerous Drugs, by
mere possesion and presence of said specimens found during the
search and seizure operation. Therefore, accused EDEN is guilty of
the violation of Section 11 of the RA 9165 the Possession of
Dangerous Drugs.
5. Section 12 of the R.A. 9165 provides “Possession of Equipment,
Instrument, Apparatus and Other Paraphernalia for Dangerous
Drugs. - The penalty of imprisonment ranging from six (6) months
and one (1) day to four (4) years and a fine ranging from Ten
thousand pesos (P10,000.00) to Fifty thousand pesos (P50,000.00)
shall be imposed upon any person, who, unless authorized by law,
shall possess or have under his/her control any equipment,
instrument, apparatus and other paraphernalia fit or intended for
smoking, consuming, administering, injecting, ingesting, or
introducing any dangerous drug into the body: Provided, That in
the case of medical practitioners and various professionals who are
required to carry such equipment, instrument, apparatus and other
paraphernalia in the practice of their profession, the Board shall
prescribe the necessary implementing guidelines thereof. The
possession of such equipment, instrument, apparatus and other
paraphernalia fit or intended for any of the purposes enumerated in
the preceding paragraph shall be prima facie evidence that the
possessor has smoked, consumed, administered to himself/herself,
injected, ingested or used a dangerous drug and shall be presumed
to have violated Sec. 15 of this Act.”12
6. Likewise during the search, the presence of a pivotal evidence
discovered by the Sta. Cruz, MPS are; One (1) opened end heat-
sealed transparent plastic sachet containing suspected shabu

11
Supra note 1
12
Supra note 2
 residue and an improvised tooter with shabu residue. The
discovery of such items is enough to constitute probable cause
regardless if there is intent or not. It was also indicative of the fact
that said evidence being in her custody, the accused have
introduced the substance to her body. She is not in any way part of
the exception stipulated under Section 12. She is not a medical
practitioner, but rather a jobless individual. Therefore, EDEN
clearly violated Section 12 of R.A. 9165
7. Although the improvised tooter submittedas an evidence to charge
for the Violation of Section 12 of R.A. 9165 is not present in the
inventory of the evidences, contrary to the information filed, the
other evidence of One (1) opened end heat-sealed transparent
plastic sachet containing suspected shabu residue which could be
considered as an instrument to the commission of the act and is
enough as an overt act to prosecute the accused of the said
violation.
8. The, One (1) opened end heat-sealed transparent plastic sachet
containing suspected shabu residue and an improvised tooter with
shabu residue, is considered as an instrument to the commission of
illegal and a prima facie evidence that the possessor has smoked,
consumed, administered to himself/herself, injected, ingested or
used a dangerous drug and shall be presumed to have violated
Section 15 of this Act.13
9. It considered as an instrument under Section 3 of R.A. of 9165
which consists of the “Definitions” of the terms within the act, in
which it is plain and clear such that there is no room for
construction, the express provisions states: “ … (s) Instrument. –
Any thing that is used in or intended to be used in any manner in
the commission of illegal drug trafficking or related offenses.” 14
10. To further strengthen the Supreme Court in the consistenent ruling
in a number of cases, that it is not necessary for an instrument to be
in the form of an apparatus or a paraphernalia, provided that it was
intended for smoking, consuming, administering, injecting,
ingesting, or introducing any dangerous drug into the body in the
case of People v. Zalameda G.R. No. 183656, notwithdstanding the
presence of paraphernalia or apparatuses, there exist the constant
presence of an unsealed opened plastic containing the drug that
constitutes to the Violation of Section 12 of R.A. 9165 to wit:

13
Supra note 2
14
Sec.13. Definitions.
 “The petitioner and Villaflor were likewise charged before
the same court with violation of Section 12, Article II of R.A.
No. 9165.
The Information for this charge reads: Criminal Case No.
03-3560 That on or about the 14th day of September 2003,
in the City of Makati, Philippines and a place within the
jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the above-named
accused, conspiring, confederating and mutually helping
and aiding one another, not being lawfully authorized to
carry dangerous paraphernalia, did then and there willfully,
unlawfully and feloniously have in their possession two (2)
aluminum foil strips and three (3) unsealed transparent
sachets with traces of Methylamphetamine Hydrochloride,
three (3) other pieces of aluminum foils strips, one (1)
stainless scissor and one (1) disposable lighter which are
instruments, apparatuses or paraphernalia fit or intended
for ingesting or introducing any dangerous drug into the
body.15
In the case of People v. Collado, G.R. No. 185719, the presence of
an unsealed transparent sachet was enough, as an instrument, to
convict them of possesion alonside the accompanying
paraphernalia, to wit:
Anent the violation of Section 12 of RA 9165 (possession of
drug paraphernalia), the CA affirmed the conviction of
Ranada as he was caught having custody and control of a
drug paraphernalia intended for smoking and injecting
illegal drugs into one’s body … a. one (1) strip aluminum
foil containing traces of white crystalline substance marked
as Exh-D; b. one (1) improvised glass tooter containing
traces of white crystalline substance marked as Exh-D1; c.
one (1) pack transparent plastic sachet marked as Exh-D2;
d. two (2) plastic disposable lighters marked as Exhs. "G-
H"; e. one (1) tape-sealed transparent plastic sachet
containing three (3) rolled aluminum foil marked as Exh.
D5; f. five (5) unsealed transparent plastic sachets marked
as Exh. D6; g. one (1) stainless scissor marked as Exh. D7;
h. one (1) rectangular glass marked as Exh. D8; and i. one
(1) roll of aluminum foil marked as Exh. D9.16

15
People v. Zalameda, G.R. No. 183656, September 4, 2009
16
People v. Collado, G.R. No. 185719, June 17, 2013
 11.Hence, premises considered that there were sufficient evidence to
convict accused for the Violation of Section 12 of R.A. 9165,
EDEN is found guilty.

II. ARREST by STA. CRUZ, MPS was made in accordance with the
law

1. The arrest of EDEN was valid. The Police Officers were armed
with a search warrant when they entered and searched the house of
the respondent, albeit the accused alleging that force and coercion
was used in the search.
2. The said warrant was requested by PO3 Reyes, and granted by by
Hon. Judge Morga in Relation to OPLAN LAMBAT SIBAT/ONE-
TIME-BIG-TIME and from witnesses corroborating to the fact that
there were illegal acts conducted and presently being conducted at
the house of the accused, EDEN.
3. The said search warrant was granted and ordered upon the
examination of sworn statements of witnesses and upon
considering that the grounds assailed by witnesses are probable
cause. “Therefore this Court let a Search Warrant issue against
EDEN to conduct a search at her residence owned by the above
named respondent, who is involved in illegal possession and
control of undetermined amount of Methamphetamine
Hydrochloride known as shabu, drug paraphernalia and other
proceeds of the crime.”
4. The Police Officers did not violate the Constitutional Rights of the
accused against Unreasonable Search and Seizure, Section 2 of
Article 3, the Bill of Rights, of the 1987 Constitution, to wit:
Section 2. The right of the people to be secure in their
persons, houses, papers and effects against unreasonable
searches and seizures of whatever nature and for any
purpose shall be inviolable, and no search warrant or
warrant of arrest shall issue except upon probable cause to
be determined personally by the judge after examination
under oath or affirmation of the complainant and the
witnesses he may produce, and particularly describing the
place to be searched and the persons or things to be seized.17
5. The above mentioned Constitutional Guarantee was not violated
since the actions undertaken by said Police Officers were within
the bounds of the said proviso, such that the elements of a proper

17
CONSTITUTION, Article III, Section 3
 search and seizure operation were present: The Sta. Cruz, MPS has
duly been authorized by the virtue of a warrant that has been issued
by a Judge who has determined probable cause through the
examination complainants and witnesses and the place that is
subjected to the search and things to be seized. Therefore, search
and seizure was in accordance with the law.

III. Planting of Evidence RA 10640

1. The allegations of accused regarding the planting of evidence in

the bag could be given cognizance by the Court, but the burden of
proof proving the said allegation would be incumbent upon the
accused.
2. The record at hand shows no conclusive evidence, testimony or
corroboration that would be suggestive of the fact that the
dangerous drug “Shabu” was indeed planted in the bag as accused
by EDEN.
3. The presence of a lone statement made by the accused in her
salaysay stating that evidence was planted in the bag of her child
was the only supporting element provided. Comparing it vis-à-vis
to the sworn testimonies and evidences presented by the Sta. Cruz,
Police MPS, it would hold less to no ground against said
testimonies presented by the apprehenders.
4. The Court again could give cognizance to her allegations, but deem
it as a form of a defense of alibi. The circumstances at hand;
having been caught in violation of a law, would cause any offender
beforehand to deny the crime in an attempt to escape liability.
Since said EDEN was under immense stress and under duress to
make a decision, she was left with no choice but to deny the
commission of the act. The Court could accept the defense but it
would not automatically be given credence or merit unless
otherwise proven factual or credible with a conclusive supporting
evidence, to be presented by the accused. As to quote Justice
Nachura, in the case of People v. Ayade, G.R. No. 188561:
 “Time and time again, this Court has ruled that denial and
alibi are the weakest of all defenses, because they are easy
to concoct and fabricate”18
5. Therefore, PO1 Medrano and PO1 Sanchez who have conducted
the search and seizure are innocent of the allegation insinuated by
EDEN, until proven guilty relying on the principle of the
Presumption of Innocence.

PRAYER

WHEREFORE, premises considered, it is respectfully prayed that

judgment be rendered in favor of plaintiff and against defendant by:

Finding EDEN be held guilty for the commission of the crime of

VIOLATION OF SECTION 11 & 12 OF REPUBLIC ACT NO.
9165:

1. The penalty of life imprisonment to death and a fine ranging

from Five hundred thousand pesos (P500,000.00) to Ten million
pesos (P10,000,000.00) for the Violation of SECTION 11 OF
REPUBLIC ACT NO. 9165.
2. The penalty of imprisonment ranging from six (6) months and
one (1) day to four (4) years and a fine ranging from Ten
thousand pesos (P10,000.00) to Fifty thousand pesos
(P50,000.00) for the Violation of SECTION 12 OF REPUBLIC
ACT NO. 9165.

Other just and equitable remedies under the circumstances are

likewise prayed for.

Quezon City, November 8, 2017.

18
People v. Ayade, G.R. No. 188561, January 15, 2010