Sei sulla pagina 1di 5

ANALYSIS AND DISCUSSION

THEORY OF THE CASE

On October 7, 2006 in Taytay, Rizal, Philippines, the said accused Allen


De La Cruz was arrested by police officers of Taytay, Rizal allegedly for having
in his possession zero point zero thirty (0.030) grams of white crystalline
substance in two (2) sachets containing Methylamphetamine hydrochloride, a
dangerous drug in consideration of Php 100.00, in a buy- bust operation
conducted by the police. Accused denied any knowledge as to the same, as well
as having received P100.00. After the inquest, accused was charged of the crime
ILLEGAL SALE OF DANGEROUS DRUGS (Violation of Section 5 paragraph
11 of R.A. 9165).

THEORY OF THE PROSECUTION

On October 7, 2006 in Taytay, Rizal, Philippines, the said accused Allen De La


Cruz not being authorized by law to possess or use any dangerous drug, did then and
there, wilfully, unlawfully and knowingly received marked money of Php 100. 00, in a
buy-bust operation conducted by the police. Accused is a known drug pusher in the area.
Arresting officer SPO1 Rogelio Marundan, together with other police officers and an
“asset” conducted the said buy-bust operation leading to the arrest of the accused and the
evidences to his guilt on the criminal act. The accuse was brought to the Prosecutors
Office the next working day for inquest and was charged of the crime ILLEGAL SALE
OF DANGEROUS DRUGS (Violation of Section 5 paragraph 11 of R.A. 9165).The
following evidences were presented to the court:

1. Joint S.S. of SPO1 Rogelio Marundan, PO1 Carlo G Cantanero and PO1
Jonhson P Marundan (Exhibit “A”)
2. Request for Laboratory Examination (Exhibit “B”)
3. Physical Science Report No. D-430-2006E (Exhibit “C”)
The prosecution will present, in four (4) trial dates, four (4) witnesses, namely:
1. SPO1 Rogelio Marundan
2. PO1 Carlo G Cantanero
3. PO1 Jonhson P Marundan, and
4. P/Sr. Insp. Isidro L. Carino

THEORY AND DEFENSE FOR THE ACCUSED

Upon arraignment, the accused entered a plea of NOT GUILTY. Accused denied
any knowledge as to the same, as well as having received P100.00.

There exist no buy-bust operation as claimed by the arresting officer. Granting


there was a buy-bust, it is that there were violations on the standard operating
procedure on the seizure and custody of dangerous drugs is found in Section 21, Article
II of R.A. No. 9165 which provides:

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.

In the case at bar, no physical inventory was done 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.

"chain of custody"
Prosecutions for illegal possession of prohibited drugs requires that the elemental
act of possession of a prohibited substance be established with moral certainty,
together with the fact that the same is not authorized by law. The dangerous drug itself
constitutes the very corpus delicti of the offense and the fact of its existence is vital to a
judgment of conviction. Essential therefore in these cases is that the identity of the
prohibited drug be established beyond doubt. Be that as it may, the mere fact of
unauthorized possession will not suffice to create in a reasonable mind the moral
certainty required to sustain a finding of guilt. More than just the fact of possession, the
fact that the substance illegally possessed in the first place is the same substance offered
in court as exhibit must also be established with the same unwavering exactitude as that
requisite to make a finding of guilt. The chain of custody requirement performs this
function in that it ensures that unnecessary doubts concerning the identity of the evidence
are removed.
The evidence presented during trial is not exactly the same substance actually
taken from the accused.

The accused also claimed that he was arrested without a warrant, asserting that
"there was nothing unusual in his behavior then which would engender a genuine reason
to believe that he was committing something illegal which would compel the police
officers to approach him."

Notably, the record shows that it was PO3 Rogelio Marundan who delivered the

items to the crime laboratory. How they were turned over to him by the investigator or

desk officer, the prosecution failed to give even a simple indication thereof.

There is thus a reasonable likelihood of substitution along the chain in that the

two plastic sachets that tested positive for shabu were different from the items allegedly

seized from petitioner. The Court has long considered such possibility of substitution as

fatal for the prosecution.


Worse, the two marked plastic sachets were not even presented, hence, not

identified in open court by the police officers-witnesses and there is no explanation extant

in the record of what happened to them after their laboratory examination.

The Chemistry Report only confirmed the contents of two plastic sachets.

Whether they were the same packets allegedly confiscated from petitioner, the

prosecution failed to establish as there was yet again an unexplained break in the chain.

That the prosecution offered in evidence the request for laboratory examination,
the chemistry report and the certification from the forensic analyst has no bearing on the
question of whether the specimens submitted for chemical analysis were the same
allegedly seized from accused. All that the exhibits proved were the existence and
authenticity of the request for laboratory examination and the results of said examination,
but not the required chain of custody from the time of seizure of the evidence until its
presentation in court. [BONIFACIO DOLERA Y TEJADA v. PEOPLE OF THE
PHILIPPINES, G.R. No. 180693 September 4, 2009]

It is incumbent upon the prosecution to rebut accused's allegations by

presenting . . . the alleged poseur-buyer. This it failed to do, giving rise to the

presumption that evidence willfully suppressed would be adverse if produced. (Rule 131,

Sec. 5[e]). This failure constitutes a total flaw in the prosecution's evidence since the so-

called informant who was never presented as a witness and never identified, is the best

witness for the prosecution. . (emphasis supplied)

This detail appears to have been suppressed by the prosecution or overlooked by

the court a quo, yet, it remains quite a damaging indication that the case of the

prosecution is tainted with misrepresentations, if not contrived incidents.


The prosecution failed to overturn the constitutional presumption of innocence in

favor of petitioner, his acquittal is in order.

For failure of the prosecution to prove his guilt beyond reasonable doubt, accused,

ALLEN DE LA CRUZ be ACQUITTED of the crime of Sale of Dangerous Drugs.

Potrebbero piacerti anche