Antonette R.

Reburiano
Bachelor of Laws IE

Legal Writing
08/27/15

STATEMENT OF FACTS
On November 1, 2012, a briefing at PDEA office was conducted for a shabu buy bust
operation to apprehend the suspect alias Aldub and will be executed together with the PNP
Legazpi at Legazpi City. The confidential informant by the PDEA was asked by the suspect to
look for a buyer of 10 bulto of shabu worth Php 200,000.00. A PDEA Agent was then
designated to be the poseur-buyer and was given 3 bundles of cut newspapers with 500 pesos
on top of the cut newspapers as boodle money. At 1:20 pm of the said date, the team arrived at
Brgy. Kalye and the informant alone went inside an alley where the sale will be made.
After an hour, the informant returned and had with him the 10 bulto of shabu and went
back to pay the boodle money. Upon return, the informant then informed the team that alias
Aldub already have the money, was wearing a red sando and the color of the gate of the
house was red. The team went along the alley, saw a red gate and entered the same. After
which, the team arrested the accused who was there at that time holding three 500 peso bill
while watching movie and was wearing a red sando.
ARGUMENTS
If I were the defense I will plead NOT GUILTY and will raise these arguments:

1. Section 5, Article II of Republic Act 9165 (Comprehensive Drugs Act of 2002) punishes
illegal sale of drugs:
Any person, who, unless authorized by law, shall sell, trade, administer,
dispense, deliver, give away to another, distribute dispatch in transit or transport
any dangerous drug, including any and all species of opium poppy regardless of
the quantity and purity involved, or shall act as a broker in any of such
transactions.
In People vs. Andaya , the State must establish the concurrence of the following
elements to charge illegal sale of drugs, namely: (a) that the transaction or sale
took place between the accused and the poseur-buyer; and (b) that the
dangerous drugs subject of the transaction or sale is presented in court as
evidence of the corpus delicti.

2. That conviction of Section 5, Article II of Republic Act 9165 charging with the illegal sale of
dangerous drugs will be untenable.

3. That on the case at bar, the transaction did not take place between the poseur-buyer and
the accused. The PDEA Agent designated as the poseur-buyer did not witness how exactly
the transaction went through. The selling and deliver of the 10 bulto of shabu was not
consummated on the presence or even under surveillance of the arresting officers during
the buy bust operation.

4. Proof beyond reasonable doubt cannot be established. In an actual buy-bust operation, the
poseur-buyer must ensure that accused sold/delivered the illegal drugs. On the present
case, the proof of transaction is unreliable when informant went back after an hour and that
no credible evidence showed that accused was the one who sold the illegal drugs.

5. The 1987 Constitution of the Philippines, Article III, Section 14, states,
"In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall be presumed innocent until the
contrary is proved

6. That presumption of innocence is awarded to the accused. The fact that there was money
recovered from the accused does not justify that such money is the same as the boodle
money used. Unless the boodle money was marked, such became specific and not
generic.

7. Section 5 of Rule 113 of the 1985 Rules on Criminal Procedure provides:

"Sec. 5: A peace officer or a private person may, without a warrant, arrest a
person:
(a) When, in his presence, the person to be arrested has committed, is actually
committing, or is attempting to commit an offense;
(b) When an offense has in fact just been committed, and he has personal
knowledge of facts indicating that the person to be arrested has committed
it; and
(c) When the person to be arrested is a prisoner who escaped from a penal
establishment or place where he is serving final judgment or temporarily
confined while his case is pending, or has escaped while being transferred
from one confinement to another."

8. That the above provision, specifically paragraph (b) as applied in the case showed
that there was an invalid arrest. The arresting officers didnt have any personal
knowledge of facts indicating that the person to be arrested committed the crime.
First, officers were not at a strategic position where they can observe the
negotiation between the informant and accused. Secondly, the arresting officers,
being informed that the accused wore a red sando and that the gate of the house
was red and finding the same is insufficient that the person committed the crime.

PRAYER
Wherefore, foregoing premises considered, it is respectfully prayed that the
accused be acquitted of the charge based on Section 5 of Republic Act 9165.
JUDGMENT
If I were the judge I will ACQUIT the accused.
Proof beyond reasonable doubt must be established to convict the accused. Thus, the
information given by the informant specifically the physical appearance of the accused and the
nature of the home was not adequate to prove that the accused was the one whom he
transacted with. The evidence of guilt as relied to the way the arresting officers conducted the
operation are likewise weak because of the fact that the poseur-buyer did not witness the
transaction. Arguing the statement of the witness and how the buy bust operation was
conducted, the evidence was insufficient and too weak to overthrow presumption of innocence
of the accused.