REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES

FIRST JUDICIAL REGION

REGIONAL TRIAL COURT
BRANCH 34
Balaoan, La Union

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES,

Plaintiff,
CRIM. CASE No. 3709 &
3709A
- versus - For:

VIOLATION OF SECS.
5 & 11,
ART. II OF R.A. 9165
JIMMY NEBRIDA Y Tabafunda
Accused.
x-------------------------x

DEMURRER TO EVIDENCE
The Accused, assisted by the Public Attorneys Office through
the undersigned counsel, and unto this Honorable Court,
respectfully moves to dismiss the above captioned cases on the
ground of insufficiency of evidence.

The following were the two (2) sets of information filed with
this Honorable Court, and their respective accusatory portions
read:

Crim. Case No. 3709

(For: Violation of Sec. 5, Art. II of R.A.9165)

That on or about the 26th day of May, 2010 in the

Municipality of Balaoan, Province of La Union,
Philippines, and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable
Court the above named accused, without authority of
law and without first securing the necessary permit,
license or prescription from the proper government
agency, did then and there willfully, unlawfully and
feloniously sell, dispose one (1) transparent plastic bag
containing one (1) brick of dried marijuana fruiting
tops, a dangerous drug, weighing ONE THOUSAND
THIRTY POINT SIXTY (1030.60) grams to PO1 MARC
CARL Q. JULATON who posed as a poseur buyer thereof
using marked money one (1) five hundred peso bill

Criminal Case No. 3709 & 3709A

DEMURRER TO EVIDENCE
Page 1 of 17
 bearing Serial Numbers DX395408 and seven (7) pieces
of boodle money.

CONTRARY TO LAW.

Crim. Case No. 3709A

(For: Violation of Sec. 11, Art. II of R.A.9165)

That on or about the 26th day of May, 2010 in the

Municipality of Balaoan, Province of La Union,
Philippines, and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable
Court the above named accused, without authority of
law and without first securing the necessary permit,
license or prescription from the proper government
agency to possess the same, did then and there
willfully, unlawfully and feloniously have in his
possession, control and custody one (1) tape sealed
brick of dried marijuana fruiting tops weighing EIGHT
HUNDRED THIRTY SIX POINT ELEVEN (836.11) grams,
one (1) torn white envelope of dried marijuana fruiting
tops weighing FORTY ONE POINT FIFTY SEVEN (41.57)
grams and one (1) white bond paper of dried marijuana
fruiting tops weighing FORTY SEVEN POINT FIFTY FOUR
(47.54) grams with a total weight of NINE HUNDRED
TWENTY FIVE POINT TWENTY TWO (925.22) grams, a
dangerous drug.

CONTRARY TO LAW.

The accused pleaded Not Guilty to the charges. The

prosecution presented on trial the testimonies of PO2 Marc Carl
Julaton, IO1 Leander Domatog and IA5 Melvin Estoque. The
prosecution also presented the forensic chemist in the person of
Police Senior Inspector Anamelisa Bacani and Barangay Kagawad
Rogelio Nitura of Barangay Almeida, Balaoan, La Union. The
presentation of the DOJ representative was dispensed with by
stipulation on the tenor that she was just asked to sign the
certificate of inventory at the Balaoan Police Station without
having to witness the physical inventory and photographing of the
seized illegal drugs.

STATEMENT OF FACTS

The facts as indicated in the Complaint-Affidavit of Poseur-

Buyer PO1 Marc Carl Q. Julaton (PO1 Julaton)and the Affidavit of
Criminal Case No. 3709 & 3709A
DEMURRER TO EVIDENCE
Page 2 of 17
Arresting Officer IO1 Leander F. Domatog (IO1 Domatog), upon
which the prosecution based the indictment of the accused are as
follows:

That on May 26, 2010 at around 10:00 oclock in the

morning, a confidential informant of the PNP RPSMB-1 2 nd
Manuever Company Bio Detachment at Tagudin, Ilocos Sur
informed said office through PO1 Julaton of one alias James who is
engaged in the rampant selling of dried marijuana leaves. PO1
Julaton transacted with @ James through said confidential
informant using a cellular phone and proposed to buy one (1)
kilogram of Marijuana. They agreed to meet in a waiting shed
going to Pitpitac Elementary School along Mayor Marcos Hi-way in
Brgy. Almieda, Balaoan, La Union between 1:30 to 2:00 oclock in
the afternoon of the same date.

Immediately thereafter, Police Inspector Richard Villanueva,

Chief of Police of said station, went to PDEA RO-1 to coordinate for
a joint anti-illegal drug operation against @ James. At 12:00 noon,
the briefing for the said operation ensued with team leader IA5
Melvin Estoque conducting said briefing. PO1 Julaton was
assigned Poseur-Buyer while IO1 Domatog was assigned as
Arresting Officer. The marked money used for the said operation
was given to PO1 Julaton. Others were also assigned different
roles. The team then proceeded to the site where the transaction
will take place.

The team arrived at the site at around 1:30 in the afternoon

as planned. Everybody positioned themselves as agreed upon
during the briefing. After around 30 minutes, a certain male
person riding a red TMX motorcycle appeared in the transaction
area. The said male person approached the confidential informant
who was with PO1 Julaton at the Waiting Shed at that time. The
said male person was the @ James who was reported earlier by
the confidential informant. @ James returned back to his
motorcycle took one light blue bag then returned to the waiting
shed and gave said bag to PO1 Julaton. PO1 Julaton gave the
boodle money after ascertaining the contents of the bag. PO1
Julaton immediately thereafter removed his sunglasses as earlier
agreed upon during the briefing to signal that the transaction for
the sale of marijuana has been consummated.

The arrest of @ James immediately followed. PO1 Julaton

introduced himself as a law enforcer while IO1 Domatog rushed to
the transaction site and declared that @ James is under arrest for
selling dangerous drugs. Search ensued for a possible deadly
weapon upon the person of @ James. Other items were recovered,
Criminal Case No. 3709 & 3709A
DEMURRER TO EVIDENCE
Page 3 of 17
still allegedly to be marijuana which was allegedly taken from the
motorcycle of @ James. Other team members secured the
transaction site/crime scene. PO1 Julaton immediately made the
marking of the seized marijuana in the presence of the accused at
the transaction area while IO1 Domatog photographed the same.
After which the team proceeded to Balaoan Police Station to
conduct the inventory of the seized illegal drugs. The inventory at
the Balaoan Police Station was attended to by a DOJ official who
was not named and whose testimony is dispensed with by
stipulation, an elected official in the person of Barangay Kagawad
Rogelio Nitura of Brgy. Almieda, Balaoan, La Union and a Media
Representative who was also not named and identified. They were
asked to sign the certificate of inventory at the police station
which they acceded.

ISSUE

Whether or not the Prosecution has presented their evidence

sufficient to overcome the presumption of innocence of the
accused.

ARGUMENTS

A buy-bust operation is a form of entrapment, which in

recent years has been accepted as valid and effective mode of
arresting violators of the Dangerous Drugs Law. It has been
proven to be an effective way of unveiling the identities of drug
dealers and of luring them out of obscurity. To determine whether
there was a valid entrapment or whether proper procedures were
undertaken in effecting the buy-bust operation, it is incumbent
upon the courts to make sure that the details of the operation are
clearly and adequately established through relevant, material and
competent evidence. The courts cannot merely rely on, but must
apply with studied restraint, the presumption of regularity in the
performance of official duty by law enforcement agents. Courts
are duty-bound to exercise extra vigilance in trying drug cases
and should not allow themselves to be used as instruments of
abuse and injustice lest innocent persons are made to suffer the
unusually severe penalties for drug offenses. 1

The Supreme Court in drug-related prosecutions said that

the State not only bears the burden of proving the elements of

1
People v. Salcena, G.R. No. 192261, November 16, 2011 citing People v. Agulay, G.R. No. 181747, September 26,
2008, People v. Concepcion, G.R. No. 178876, June 27, 2008 and Valdez v. People, G.R.No. 170180, November 23,
2007.
Criminal Case No. 3709 & 3709A
DEMURRER TO EVIDENCE
Page 4 of 17
the offenses of sale and possession of illegal drugs under RA
9165, but also carries the obligation to prove the corpus delicti,
the body of the crime, to discharge its overall duty of proving the
guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt. 2 The reason for
this says the Supreme Court is founded on the very nature
of anti-narcotics operations characterized by the need for
entrapment procedures, the use of shady characters as
informants, the ease with which sticks of marijuana or
grams of heroin can be planted in pockets or hands of
unsuspecting provincial hicks, and the secrecy that
inevitably shrouds all drug deals, all of these provide for a
great possibility that anti-narcotics operations may be
abused. (Emphasis supplied) Thus, trial courts were exhorted by
the Supreme Court to be extra vigilant in trying drug cases lest an
innocent person is made to suffer the unusually severe penalties
for drug offenses.3

We say that the prosecution failed in this sense in this case.

Our main argument is the prosecutions failure to establish the
integrity and evidentiary value of the corpus delicti, the seized
illegal drug, which should have been preserved in an unbroken
chain of custody. It is well-settled that in the prosecution of cases
involving the illegal sale or illegal possession of dangerous drugs,
the evidence of the corpus delicti which is the dangerous drug
itself, must be independently established beyond reasonable
doubt.4

To preserve the integrity and evidentiary value of the corpus

delicti, the seized illegal drug, Section 21 of Republic Act No.
(R.A.) 9165 otherwise known as the Comprehensive Dangerous
Drugs Act of 2002 delineates the mandatory procedural
safeguards that are applicable in cases of buy-bust operations.
Section 21 of the said law outlines the procedure to be followed in
the seizure and custody of prohibited drugs, to wit:

Section 21. Custody and Disposition of Confiscated,

Seized, and/or Surrendered Dangerous Drugs, Plant
Sources of Dangerous Drugs, Controlled Precursors and
Essential Chemicals, Instruments/Paraphernalia and/or
Laboratory Equipment. The PDEA shall take charge and
have custody of all dangerous drugs, plant sources of
dangerous drugs, controlled precursors and essential
chemicals, as well as instruments/paraphernalia and/or
laboratory equipment so confiscated, seized and/or
2
People v. Coreche, G.R. No. 182528, August 14, 2009 citing People v. Dela Cruz, G.R. No. 182348, November
20, 2008 and People v. Garcia, G.R. No. 173480, February 25, 2009.
3
People v. Beran, G.R. No. 203028, January 15, 2014.
4
People v. Morales, G.R. No. 172873, March 19, 2010.
Criminal Case No. 3709 & 3709A
DEMURRER TO EVIDENCE
Page 5 of 17
 surrendered, for proper disposition in the following
manner:

(1) The apprehending team having initial custody and

control of the drugs shall, immediately after seizure and
confiscation, physically inventory and photograph the
same in the presence of the accused or the person/s
from whom such items were confiscated and/or seized,
or his/her representative or counsel, a representative
from the media and the Department of Justice (DOJ),
and any elected public official who shall be required to
sign the copies of the inventory and be given a copy
thereof;

xxx

To implement the above mentioned provision of law, Article

II, Section 21(a) of the Implementing Rules and Regulations
(IRR) of Republic Act No. 9165 were crafted to wit:

xxx

(a) The apprehending office/team having initial custody

and control of the drugs shall, immediately after
seizure and confiscation, physically inventory and
photograph the same in the presence of the
accused or the person/s from whom such items were
confiscated and/or seized, or his/her representative or
counsel, a representative from the media and the
Department of Justice (DOJ), and any elected
public official who shall be required to sign the copies
of the inventory and be given a copy thereof: Provided,
that the physical inventory and photograph shall be
conducted at the place where the search warrant is
served; or at the nearest police station or at the nearest
office of the apprehending officer/team, whichever is
practicable, in case of warrantless seizures; Provided,
further that non-compliance with these requirements
under justifiable grounds, as long as the integrity and
the evidentiary value of the seized items are properly
preserved by the apprehending officer/team, shall not
render void and invalid such seizures of and custody
over said items; (Emphasis supplied)

xxx

Criminal Case No. 3709 & 3709A

DEMURRER TO EVIDENCE
Page 6 of 17
 We contend that these procedural safeguards provided for
by law were not followed to its strictest sense by law enforcers in
this case. The above provision of law demands strict compliance
as noted by our Supreme Court, for only by such strict compliance
may be eliminated the grave mischief of planting or substitution
of evidence and the unlawful and malicious prosecution of the
frail and innocent that they are intended to prevent. 5 Such strict
compliance is also consistent with the doctrine that penal laws
shall be construed strictly against the Government and liberally in
favor of the accused.6

We take notice of this procedural error committed by law

enforcers that is they failed to physically inventory and
photograph the seized illegal drug in the presence of the
accused or the person/s from whom such items were confiscated
and/or seized, or his/her representative or counsel, a
representative from the media and the Department of
Justice (DOJ), and any elected public official notwithstanding
that they were supposed to have been conducting a planned
smart operation. Though an inventory and photographing was
made by members of the buy-bust team particularly PO1 Julaton
who made the inventory and IO1 Domatog who photographed the
same, these were done only in the presence of the accused
without the required witnesses at the transaction area. This can
be culled from the testimonies of the prosecution in this case.

(On Direct Examination of PO1 Marc Carl Julaton)

xxx

Q What did you do with this bag as well as its contents?

A After that, I immediately made the markings, sir.

Q How about the first brick of marijuana, the subject of

your operation, what did you with that?

A Made markings, sir.

Q Who made the markings?

A Me and the other elements sir.

Q When you said other elements, who are these

elements?

5
People v. Gonzales, G.R. No. 182417, April 3, 2013.
6
People v. Denoman, G.R. No. 171732, August 14, 2009.
Criminal Case No. 3709 & 3709A
DEMURRER TO EVIDENCE
Page 7 of 17
 A My immediate back-up and he took photographs, sir.

Q How about the red motorcycle allegedly owned and

used by the accused, what did you do with the said
motorcycle?

A We confiscated also, sir.

Q Where did you conduct the markings of the seized

items as a result of that buybust operation you casted
against the accused?

A In the transaction area but when the area become

crowded, the team leader of the PDEA decided to
continue the inventory at the Balaoan Police Station,
sir.7

xxx
(On Direct Examination IA5 Melvin Estoque)

xxx

Q For how long did the markings take place?

A A couple of minutes sir.

Q At the place of incident?

A Yes, sir.

Q Thereafter, what happened?

A We tried to contact several media personnel and DOJ

representative, unfortunately they were not available,
so we waited for almost an hour because we wanted to
conduct the inventory at the place of the said
transaction area to comply with Section 21 of Republic
Act 9165, sir.

Q What happened with that waiting of one hour?

A For about an hour when I contacted the Chief of Police

of Balaoan, La Union to ask if they could provide us
media personnel and DOJ representative, then we
agreed that we will just continue the inventory at the
Balaoan Police Station, sir.
7
TSN, May 9, 2013, pp12-13.
Criminal Case No. 3709 & 3709A
DEMURRER TO EVIDENCE
Page 8 of 17
 Q So it is correct to say that you proceeded here in
Balaoan?

A Yes, sir.8

This is consonance with the testimony of the elected

barangay official who was only called to sign the certificate of
inventory at Balaoan Police Station together with the other
required witnesses and not immediately after the confiscation or
seizure of the illegal drugs.

(On Cross-examination of Barangay Kagawad Rogelio Nitura)

xxx

Q And when you arrived at that place where you were

called, Jimmy Nebrida was already arrested, is it not?

A Yes, maam.

Q You did not notice how Jimmy Nebrida was arrested isnt
it?

A No maam.

Q You also did not notice how the alleged confiscated

items were already confiscated?

A Yes, maam.

Q When you arrived at that place, you were only told to

sign the document as witness then?

A No maam because the PDEA was around waiting for

the transaction of Jimmy.

Q The question is: You were called by the PDEA to affix

your signature on the document that previously
presented to you by the good prosecutor, isnt it?

A At that time no maam because the PDEA brought me

at the Police Station.

Q So you were brought to the Police Station?

8
TSN, September 5, 2013, pp. 9-10.
Criminal Case No. 3709 & 3709A
DEMURRER TO EVIDENCE
Page 9 of 17
 A Yes, maam.

Q By the PDEA?

A Yes, maam.

Q And it was in the police station where you affixed your

signature on the document?

A Yes, maam.

Q Who were with you at the police station when you

affixed your signature mr witness?

A The PDEA and Jimmy Nebrida, the accused, maam. 9

The DOJ representative was not presented to court and her

testimony dispensed with by stipulation that she was asked to go
to the police station (Balaoan Police Station) to sign the certificate
of inventory.10

With the above incident as narrated by prosecution

witnesses, there is a clear contravention of the law. The inventory
and photographing of the confiscated illegal drugs were never
made in the presence of the required witnesses immediately after
its seizure. Under the law, the inventory and photographing of the
seized items must be conducted in the presence of a
representative from the media, from the Department of Justice
(DOJ), and any elected public official.11 The witnesses were never
present in the crime scene but were only asked to sign the
certificate of inventory at the Balaoan Police Station. This lays
doubt to the integrity and evidentiary value of the allegedly
seized illegal drugs. The Supreme Court stated that the concern
with narrowing the window of opportunity for tampering with
evidence found legislative expression in Section 21(1) of RA 9165
on the inventory of seized dangerous drugs and paraphernalia by
putting in place a three-tiered requirement on the time,
witnesses, and proof of inventory by imposing on the
apprehending team having initial custody and control of the drugs
the duty to immediately after seizure and confiscation,
physically inventory and photograph the same in the
presence of the accused or the person/s from whom such
items were confiscated and/or seized, or his/her
representative or counsel, a representative from the
media and the Department of Justice (DOJ), and any
9
TSN, June 4, 2015, pp. 5-6.
10
TSN, June 4, 2015, p. 7.
11
People v. Umipang, G.R. No. 190321, April 25, 2012.
Criminal Case No. 3709 & 3709A
DEMURRER TO EVIDENCE
Page 10 of 17
elected public official who shall be required to sign the
copies of the inventory and be given a copy thereof.
(Emphasis supplied) Jurisprudence has consistently held that the
procedural safeguards enunciated in Section 21 of R.A. 9165 must
be strictly observed.

The first stage in the chain of custody is the marking of the

dangerous drugs or related items. Supreme Court defined
marking as the affixing on the dangerous drugs or related items
by the apprehending officer or the poseur-buyer of his initials or
signature or other identifying signs, and this should be made in
the presence of the apprehended violator immediately upon
arrest.12 This is the initial step in preserving the integrity and
evidentiary value of the seized illegal drugs. The requirement of
the law is that this should be done in the presence of witnesses
a representative from the media and the Department of
Justice (DOJ), and any elected public official but the contrary
is shown. None of these witnesses were present immediately after
the confiscation or seizure to observe the photographing and
inventory of the seized illegal drugs. To further strengthen this
contention, photographs submitted by prosecution forming part of
their evidence depicts the non-conformity of law enforcers to the
aforementioned rule the photographing and inventory after the
confiscation of the illegal drugs in the presence of the required
witnesses was done at the Balaoan Police Station and not
immediately after the seizure of the alleged illegal drugs at the
transaction area. The alleged photograph at the transaction area
did not show the presence of the witness required by the Section
21 of R.A. 9165 and or the chain of custody rule. The evidence
of the prosecution even at this stage must necessary fail because
of high probability of tampering as the necessary safeguards were
not followed. In acquitting the accused based on reasonable
doubt, the Supreme Court explained that the inventory and
photographing is to be made in the presence of the accused or his
representative, or within the presence of any representative from
the media, Department of Justice or any elected official, who must
sign the inventory or be given a copy of the inventory were
really significant stages of the procedures outlined by the law and
its IRR.13

Republic Act No. 9165 and its IRR, by way of exception, both
state that the non-compliance with the procedures particularly the
chain of custody rule embodied in Section 21 would not
necessarily invalidate the seizure and custody of the dangerous
drugs provided there were justifiable grounds for the non-
compliance, and provided that the integrity and evidentiary value
12
People v. Alejandro, G.R. No. 176350, August 10, 2011.
13
People v. Sabdula, G.R. No. 184758, April 21, 2014 citing People v. Gonzales, G.R. No. 182417, April 3, 2013.
Criminal Case No. 3709 & 3709A
DEMURRER TO EVIDENCE
Page 11 of 17
of the corpus delicti was preserved. The non-compliance with the
procedures, to be excusable, must have to be justified by the
States agents themselves. We aver that there is no amount of
justification that can be made by law enforcers since this is a
planned activity. They have ample of opportunity to coordinate
with the required actors specifically the witnesses to comply with
the said rule but they did not. It was not even a part of their
briefing for the said operation as can be gleaned from the
testimonies of PO1 Julaton, IO1 Domatog and IA5 Melvin Estoque
who played major roles in the buy-bust operation. Further, the
transfer of the inventory of the corpus delicti from the transaction
site to Balaoan Police Station already casts doubt as the
safeguard to the preservation of its integrity and evidentiary
value were not put to place none of the witnesses accompanied
said transport to ensure that seized illegal drugs are the same
illegal drugs which were inventoried at the Balaoan Police Station.
The witnesses were only required to attend the signing of the
certificate of inventory at the Balaoan Police Station where they
affixed their signature at certificate of inventory not having
witnessed the actual marking and photographing of the seized
illegal drugs with the accused. It is relatively easy for this law
enforcers to just take persons who will act and stand as witnesses
and sign the certificate of inventory. For the arresting officers
failure to adduce justifiable grounds, it is safe to conclude that
this procedural lapses committed by the arresting officers
deliberately disregarded the legal safeguards under R.A. 9165.
Even if the marking of the seized illegal drugs at the scene of the
crime by the buy-bust team had not been practical or possible for
the buy-bust team to do as contended by PO1 Julaton, IO1
Domatog and IA5 Melvin Estoque, the saving mechanism would
still not be applicable due to the lack of a credible showing of any
effort undertaken by the buy-bust team to keep the seized illegal
drugs intact while in transit to the police station. 14 These lapses
effectively produced serious doubts on the integrity and identity
of the corpus delicti, especially in the face of allegations of frame-
up.15

It is the assertion of the accused that reasonable doubt

therefore existed in this case as integrity and evidentiary value of
the corpus delicti was not preserved even at the initial stage the
proper documentation immediately after the seizure. Proof
beyond reasonable doubt in criminal prosecution for the sale of
illegal drugs demands that unwavering exactitude be observed in
establishing the corpus delicti the body of the crime whose core is
the confiscated illicit drug.16 The unexplained non-compliance with
14
People v. Relato, G.R. No. 173794, January 18, 2012.
15
People v. Umipang, G.R. No. 190321, April 25, 2012.
16
People v. Beran, G.R. No. 203028, January 15, 2014 citing People v. Pagaduan G.R. No. 179029, August 9, 2010.
Criminal Case No. 3709 & 3709A
DEMURRER TO EVIDENCE
Page 12 of 17
the procedures for preserving the chain of custody of the
dangerous drugs has frequently caused the Court to absolve
those found guilty by the lower courts. 17

Secondly, there was confusion as to who has custody of the

allegedly seized illegal drugs from the time of its seizure to its
transport to the Balaoan Police Station for inventory and to the
PDEA Regional Office in San Fernando City for the preparation of
other documentary requirements necessary for the filing of a case
against herein accused. This again is a violation of the chain of
custody rule. The Dangerous Drugs Board defined chain of
custody as the duly recorded authorized movements and
custody of seized drugs or controlled chemicals or plant sources
of dangerous drugs or laboratory equipment of each stage, from
the time of seizure/confiscation to receipt in the forensic
laboratory to safekeeping to presentation in court for destruction.
Such record of movements and custody of seized item shall
include the identity and signature of the person who held
temporary custody of the seized item, the date and time when
such transfer of custody were made in the course of safekeeping
and use in court as evidence, and the final disposition. 18 The
chain of custody rule requires that there be testimony about
every link in the chain, from the moment the object seized was
picked up to the time it was offered in evidence, in such a way
that every person who touched it would describe how and from
whom it was received, where it was and what happened to it while
in the possession of the witness, the condition in which it was
received and the condition in which it was delivered to the next
link in the chain.19 This is not what it is in this case.

(Cross Examination of PO1 Julaton)

xxx

Q You said a while ago that upon your arrival in San

Fernando City, at the PDEA Office, you handed to Melvin
Estoque the marijuana that you seized from the
accused, correct?

A Yes, sir.

Q Is there any evidence to show that you handed the

marijuana to him?

A My other team mates in that operation, sir.

17
People v. Robles, G.R. No. 177220, April 24, 2009.
18
Dangerous Drugs Board Resolution No. 1 Series of 2002.
19
People v. Beran, G.R. No. 203028, January 15, 2014.
Criminal Case No. 3709 & 3709A
DEMURRER TO EVIDENCE
Page 13 of 17
Q In fact you never stated in your affidavit because it
appears from the affidavit that that marijuana was in
your possession up to the time you delivered it to the
crime laboratory, it was you who delivered, correct?

A Yes sir but I was with the PDEA team when I handed the
evidences to Melvin Estoque, sir.

Q So you were with Estoque, correct?

A Yes, sir.

Q Now at the time you left the PDEA Office, who was
holding the things seized from the accused?

A Estoque sir, we turned it over to the crime laboratory,

sir.

Q So, from Balaoan up to the PDEA Office in San

Fernando, who was holding the seized marijuana?

A I turned it over to Melvin Estoque, sir.

Q At the Balaoan Police Station?

A Yes sir but I was with him.

Q Okay so when you said a while ago that I handed to

Melvin Estoque the seized marijuana at the PDEA Office
in San Fernando, that is not accurate, correct because
you are saying that before you left Balaoan PNP, you
already handed to Estoque but you were with him,
correct? So which is the one correct now?

A I handed those evidences to Melvin Estoque but I was

with them, sir.

Q Where did you hand it first, at the PDEA Office in San

Fernando or before you left Balaoan PNP?

A Before we left Balaoan PNP, sir.

Q You stated a while ago that when you arrived at the

PDEA Office in San Fernando, I clearly heard you said I
handed to Melvin Estoque the seized marijuana at the
PDEA Office in San Fernando. So which is which? You
Criminal Case No. 3709 & 3709A
DEMURRER TO EVIDENCE
Page 14 of 17
 handed it here in Balaoan before you left for San
Fernando or you handed to him when you arrived at the
PDEA San Fernando for documentation purposes?

A Sir, I handed those evidences but I was with them.

Q Yes but my question is: You handed it at the Balaoan

PNP those evidences before you left San Fernando or
you handed ti Estoque right there at the office of the
PDEA in San Fernando for documentation?

PROS SOLOMON
We object your honor because it was already answered
and that question has already been repeatedly asked
several times, your honor.

ATTY GACAYAN
What was the answer?

PROS SOLOMON
Already answered, your honor.

ATTY GACAYAN
He said he handed it to him but I was with them and my
question is where?

PROS SOLOMON
He answered before we went to San Fernando, your
honor.20

xxx

A careful scrutiny of the account of PO1 Julaton as to who

has custody of the allegedly seized illegal drug after its inventory
at the Balaoan Police Station would reveal that PO1 Julaton
handed custody of the allegedly seized illegal drugs to IA5 Melvin
Estoque, the team leader of the team who conducted the buy-
bust operation against the herein accused. Though it may not be
clear from the testimony of PO1 Julaton where did he turned it
(allegedly seized illegal drugs) over, whether when they were still
at the Balaoan Police Station or when they were already at the
PDEA office in San Fernando City, La Union because of conflicting
statements, one thing is sure - there was a turnover of the
allegedly seized illegal drugs from the custody of PO1 Julaton to
IA5 Melvin Estoque. Custody of the allegedly seized illegal drug
was for a time taken out of PO1 Julaton and was given to IA5
20
TSN, May 9, 2013, pp. 29-31.
Criminal Case No. 3709 & 3709A
DEMURRER TO EVIDENCE
Page 15 of 17
Melvin Estoque, who did not mark the same in order to preserve
the chain of custody of the allegedly seized illegal drugs. This is a
clear contravention of the chain of custody rule in the
prosecution of illegal drugs cases. Though PO1 Julaton said that
he was with IA5 Melvin Estoque when the transport of the
allegedly seized illegal drugs was made from the transaction area
to the Balaoan Police Station to the PDEA Office in San Fernando
City, La Union, nothing can take away the fact that there was
transfer of custody of said illegal drugs as it was taken out of the
hand of PO1 Julaton and was given to IA5 Melvin Estoque. Even
when PO1 Julaton was with IA5 Melvin Estoque when they were at
the PDEA office, PO1 Julaton did not state categorically that he
never lost sight of the allegedly seized illegal drugs; he only
stated that he was with the team. We argue therefore that it is not
in the remotest possibility that when said allegedly seized illegal
drugs were in the hands of IA5 Melvin Estoque it might have
undergone changes or possibly contamination of that sort which
cast doubt as to the integrity and evidentiary value of the
allegedly seized illegal drugs from the accused. There is a clear
severance of the chain of custody. As held in Malillin v. People, to
establish the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt in
cases involving dangerous drugs, it is important that the
substance illegally possessed in the first place be the same
substance offered in court as exhibit. This chain of custody
requirement ensures that unnecessary doubts are removed
concerning the identity of the evidence. 21 This is not true in the
case at hand as there was a transfer of custody of the allegedly
seized illegal drugs and said transfer or change of custody was
never documented which sheds doubt as to the integrity and
evidentiary value of the corpus delicti that is the allegedly
seized illegal drugs. Proof beyond reasonable doubt is the
requirement needed to be observed in establishing the corpus
delicti the body of the crime whose core is the confiscated illicit
drug.22 The Supreme Court in a long list of its decisions has time
and again reiterated this requisite and failure on the part of the
prosecution to prove such entitles the accused to his acquittal.

PRAYER

WHEREFORE, in view of the above discussion of arguments,

it is respectfully prayed of this Honorable Court for the dismissal
of the above-captioned cases for insufficiency of evidence against
the accused.

21
Malillin v. People, G.R. No. 172953, April 30, 2008.
22
People v. Sanchez, G.R. No. 175832, October 15, 2008.
Criminal Case No. 3709 & 3709A
DEMURRER TO EVIDENCE
Page 16 of 17
 Other just and equitable reliefs are likewise prayed for.

RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED at Balaoan, La Union on August

14, 2015.

PUBLIC ATTORNEYS OFFICE

Counsel for the Accused
Balaoan District Office
Balaoan, La Union
by:

GILBERT R. HUFANA
Public Attorney I
Roll No. 61392; March 27, 2012; Manila
IBP No. 974966; January 6, 2015; IBP La Union Chapter
MCLE Compliance No. IV-0020627

NOTICE OF HEARING

The Branch Clerk of Court

RTC Branch 34
Balaoan, La Union

Greetings! Please submit this Demurrer to Evidence for

the consideration of the Honorable Court promptly upon receipt
hereof.

GILBERT R. HUFANA

Copy furnished:

PROS. AONUEVO G. SOLOMON

OFFICE OF THE PROVINCIAL PROSECUTOR
Balaoan Branch Office
Balaoan, La Union

Criminal Case No. 3709 & 3709A

DEMURRER TO EVIDENCE
Page 17 of 17