INTEROFFICE MEMORANDUM

TO : ATTY. ROLLY PEORO

FROM : CRISTINE JOY A. KWONG
SUBJECT : ACCUSED EDEN’S ALLEGED VIOLATION OF RA 9165
DATE : OCTOBER 30, 2019
_____________________________________________________________

I. FACTS OF THE CASE

Prosecution’s version

PO1 Edison Medrano and PO1 Jonel Sanchez received an information and
report regarding the illegal sale of drugs in Brgy. Duhat, Santa Cruz,
Laguna. Their intel operatives monitored and recruited information and
found out Eden had in her possession Shabu.

On July 9, 2016, 2:25 AM, their intel operatives conducted a test-buy

and, after buying suspected shabu, had the substance evaluated by the
Laguna Provincial Crime Laboratory. The results pointed out that the
substance was Methamphethamine Hydrochloride, otherwise known as
Shabu. They later applied for a search warrant, which was approved.

On 1:40 am of the same day, they coordinated with PDEA and were
given a control number. After planning the implementation of the search
warrant, they proceeded to search for the house. After arriving at the house
of the alleged drug pusher, they knocked until a woman named Eden opened
the door. They showed her the search warrant and, after she read it, she
allowed them to conduct the search around the house.

During such search, they found a brown coin pouch containing three
small heat-sealed transparent plastic sachets containing crystal like
substances, which they marked as JS-1, JS-2, and JS-3, a piece of open-end
transparent plastic sachet with alleged shabu residue which they marked as
JS-4, and a brown coin pouch which they marked as JS-5. After arresting the
suspect, PO1 Medrano informed her of her rights and brought her to the
station to investigate, and to request that the evidence acquired to be
evaluated by the Crime Laboratory Office.

Respondent’s version

At around 3 am on July 9, 2016, Eden was asleep with her relatives.

They were unaware of the knocking at their door. There was later a loud
thump on their window which woke Eden up, and she heard one of the
policemen say that if she did not open the door, they would break her windows

1
and her door. After opening the door, the policemen suddenly went in and
immediately searched the house. They found nothing, yet insisted there was
Shabu to be found there. One of the policemen later approached Eden’s child’s
bag and inserted the Shabu. Eden and her children saw this, yet the policemen
insisted that if she did not show the Shabu, she would lose her freedom. Eden
also stated that as a result of this search, she lost her cellphone, powerbank,
and silver necklace.

II. ISSUE

Whether or not accused Eden should be held guilty for the alleged
violation of RA 9165, ART 2, Sections 11 and 12.

III. DISCUSSION

RA 9165 Art. II Sec. 11 penalizes the possession of various dangerous

drugs, such as opium, morphine, and methamphetamine hydrochloride or
“shabu”. On the other hand, Art. II Sec. 12 of the same Act penalizes the
possession of equipment, instrument, apparatus, and other paraphernalia for
dangerous drugs1.

In this case, the inventory lists a heat-sealed transparent plastic sachet

containing white crystalline substance suspected as shabu, and an open-end
transparent plastic sachet containing shabu residue, falling under Sec. 11. Also
included in the inventory is a brown coin purse.

Although there are discrepancies between the prosecution’s version

versus the defendant’s, it can be said that “The direct account of law
enforcement officers enjoy the presumption of regularity in the performance
of their duties”2, as held in People v Stephan Cabiles y Suarez. However, in
the more recent jurisprudence of People v Arposeple y Sanchez, it was held
that “continuing accretions of case law reiterate that a high premium is
accorded the presumption of innocence over the presumption of regularity
in the performance of official duty”3. Hence, the fact remains that the burden
of proof remains on the end of the prosecution, and that the testimony of the
defense is to be given great significance.

IV. ARGUMENT

1
Rep. Act No. 9165 (2002)
2
People v. Stephan Cabiles y Suarez, G.R. No. 220758, June 7, 2017.
3
People v Arposeple y Sanchez, G.R. No. 205787, November 22, 2017.

2
 The “one piece of improvised tooter with shabu reside”, being an
instrument intended to introduce dangerous drugs into the body, was not
alleged in the inventory but was merely alleged in the information accusing
Eden of violation of RA 9165 Art II Sec. 12. Further, said tooter was also not
alleged in the sworn oaths of PO1 Medrano and Sanchez.

There is a violation of Rule 126 Section 11 of the Rules of Court, which

states that:

“The officer seizing property under the warrant must give a

detailed receipt for the same to the lawful occupant of the premises in
whose presence the search and seizure were made, or in the absence of
such occupant, must, in the presence of at least two witnesses of
sufficient age and discretion residing in the same locality, leave a
receipt in the place in which he found the seized property”4

There is a violation of such as nowhere was it stated in the receipt that

there was a tooter that was confiscated.

As for the information under RA 9165 Section 11, Section 1(b) of

Dangerous Drugs Board Regulation No. 1, Series of 2002 defines the “chain
of custody rule” 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”5

Under this rule, items will not be accepted as evidence during the trial
unless the chain of custody is continuous and properly documented by the
proper officials, as well as without discrepancies. This is due to the possibility
of “drug planting”, or in the words of the Supreme Court, “Strict adherence to
Section 21 is required where the quantity of illegal drugs seized is miniscule,
since it is highly susceptible to planting, tampering or alteration of
evidence”6. The small quantities of shabu allegedly found in Eden’s
possession entitles her to said strict adherence of this rule.

4
REV. RULES OF CRIM. PROC., Rule 126, sec. 11.
5
DDB Reg. No. 1 (2002)
6
People v. Romy Lim Y Miranda, G.R. No. 231989, September 4, 2018.

3
 Further, it was also stated in the case of People v Romy Lim Y Miranda
that there was an absence of a member from the National Prosecution Service/
the media during the inventory7. RA 91265 Section 21 provides that:

“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”8

Here, the inventory was only signed by an Acting Chief of Police, and
although in the sworn oath it was stated that they had with them the media and
barangay official, the fact remains that the inventory lacks the signing of the
media representative, a DOJ representative, and any elected public official.
Thus, the suspicion of “drug planting” would fall upon the prosecution.

V. CONVICT OR ACQUIT

Based on the foregoing, I find it most appropriate to acquit the

accused based on reasonable doubt.

VI. RECOMMENDATION/ CONCLUSION

It was not proved beyond reasonable doubt that Eden did in fact have
in her possession the dangerous drugs nor instruments for such alleged in the
information, due to the prosecution’s violation of the “chain of custody” rule.

Other than just merely acquitting Eden, I believe it would be

appropriate to charge the police officers with violation of RA 9165 Sec. 29,
which provides that:

“Any person who is found guilty of "planting" any dangerous drug

and/ or controlled precursor and essential chemical, regardless of
quantity and purity, shall suffer the penalty of death”9

7
Supra. See footnote 6
8
Rep. Act No. 9165 (2002), sec. 21.
9
Rep. Act No. 9165 (2002), sec. 29.

4
 However, since the death penalty has been abolished by virtue of RA
9346, it is appropriate for the prosecuting officers to be bestowed the penalty
of life imprisonment10, if proved that they did in fact violate the above.

10
Rep. Act No. 9165 (2006), sec. 2.