REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES

REGIONAL TRIAL COURT

FOURTH JUDICIAL REGION
BRANCH 84-BATANGAS CITY

THE PEOPLE
OF THE PHILIPPINES, CRIM. CASE NO.
16339
Plaintiff,

-versus- -for-

RONALD ALLAN MELGAR y Malvar, VIOLATION OF ARTICLE II,

Accused, SECTION 11, OF REPUBLIC
ACT No. RA 9165
x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x

MOTION FOR LEAVE OF COURT TO FILE DEMURRER TO

EVIDENCE

COMES NOW, accused RONALD ALLAN MELGAR y Malvar,

thru the undersigned counsel de oficio, and unto this Honorable Court,
most respectfully avers:

That on September 23, 2010, the Public Attorney’s Office

received a copy of the Order issued by this Honorable Court admitting
all exhibits and their respective submarkings which were formally
offered by the Prosecution, and after such admission, the latter is now
considered to have rested its case;

That after a careful and thorough evaluation of the evidence

presented by the Prosecution, the undersigned counsel honestly
believes that the evidence is not sufficient to establish the guilt of the
accused beyond reasonable doubt;

That to warrant conviction for Illegal Possession of Dangerous

Drugs, the prosecution must prove beyond reasonable doubt all its
elements, to wit: any of the following: (1) the accused is in possession
of an item or an object identified to be a dangerous drug; (2) such
possession is not authorized by law; and, (3) the accused has freely
and consciously possessed the dangerous drug. (People v. Li Ka Kim,
G. R. No. 148586, 25 May 2004).

That, the constitutional right of the accused to be secure in his

person, houses, papers and effects against unreasonable searches and
seizures of whatever nature and for any purpose was violated and this
was confirmed when Police Officer David Salazar Reyes testified that
he arrested the accused because he saw him while handing something
to another person, however, no evidence was presented that will
justify the arrest of the accused. It was the claim of the police officer
that he acted on his suspicion that accused was committing an offense
and this basis is not amongst the permitted ones by our law. Police
Officer David Salazar Reyes even admitted that he held first the
accused and confiscated from him the alleged specimen and thereafter
arrest ensued. This constitutional infraction committed by the police
officer will evidently result to the exclusion of the items allegedly taken
from the accused as the same are considered to be proverbial fruits of
the poisonous tree.

That as held in the case of People of the Philippines vs.

Sanchez, G.R.No. 175832 promulgated on October 15, 2008, the
Supreme Court pronounced, to wit:

“Long before Congress passed RA 9165, this Court

has consistently held that failure of the authorities to
immediately mark the seized drugs raises reasonable
doubt on the authenticity of the corpus delicti and suffices
to rebut the presumption of regularity in the performance
of official duties.”

It was very apparent from the testimony of the police officer who
confiscated from the accused the alleged specimen that he failed to
put markings on it at the place where the said specimen was recovered
and his failure to justify his non-compliance of the aforementioned law
is fatal to the prosecution's case.

"The failure of the buy bust operatives to follow established

procedures in dealing with the person they have arrested and the
items allegedly seized and/or recovered engenders a doubt as to the
veracity of the claim that they arrested the accused after the alleged
illegal drugs deal.” (People vs. Canels Araneta, G.R. No. 97086,
May 8, 1992)

Furthermore, it was also the ruling of the Supreme Court which is

very applicable to the instant case in the case of People of the
Philippines vs. Marian Coreche y Caber, G. R. No. 182528,
promulgated on August 14, 2009, to wit:

“Equivocal evidence on the post chemical

examination custody of the seized drugs created the
second gap in the chain of custody. In drug related
prosecutions, the State not only bears the burden of
proving the elements of the offenses of sale and
possession of methamphetamine hydrochloride 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.”

Worthy to consider likewise are the conflicting testimonies of the

prosecution’s witnesses as regards the identities and integrity of the
corpus delicti, to wit:

1. The duty desk officer P02 Neil De Guzman testified that

only one plastic sachet containing of suspected shabu
was presented to him by the arresting officer during the
time that their arrival was recorded in the police blotter.
 2. The DOJ representative who signed the Certificate of
Inventory claimed that the second inventory happened
at the Batangas City Police Station at around 3:00
o’clock in the afternoon while it was provided in the
Request for Laboratory Examination that the said
request together with the specimen was duly received at
11:20 o’clock in the morning on March 26, 2010;

3. That it was testified to by P02 David Salazar Reyes that

he handed the specimen subject matter of this case to
SP02 Pepito Adelantar at the Brgy. Hall of Brgy. Sta.
Clara, Batangas City but the police blotter stated that
the specimens were turned over at the Batangas City
Police Station;

That the failure of the prosecution to prove the guilt of accused

beyond reasonable doubt absolves the latter for the crime charged.

PRAYER

WHEREFORE, premises considered, it is most respectfully

prayed of this Honorable Court that the undersigned counsel be
granted leave of court to file demurrer to evidence within ten (10)
days from receipt of the Order granting this Motion, or within a
reasonable time the Honorable Court may deem just and appropriate
under the circumstances.

Other reliefs, just and equitable under the premises are likewise
prayed for.

Batangas City, September 23, 2010.

PUBLIC ATTORNEY’S OFFICE

DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE
BATANGAS DISTRICT OFFICE
HALL OF JUSTICE BUILDING
PALLOCAN, BATANGAS CITY
Counsel for the Accused

By:

NELVIN M. ASI
Public Attorney 2
Roll No. 50530
MCLE Compliance No. III
-0011316

NOTICE OF HEARING
The City Prosecutor
Batangas City

The Branch Clerk of Court

Regional Trial Court
Branch 8, Batangas City

G R E E T I N G S:

Please take notice that this Motion will be submitted for hearing
on September 28, 2010 at 8:30 o’clock in the morning.

NELVIN M. ASI

Copy furnished:

The City Prosecutor

Batangas City