1

REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES

REGIONAL TRIAL COURT
4TH JUDICIAL REGION
BRANCH 69
KONOHA CITY
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES,
Plaintiff,
CRIM. CASE NO. 14344-2004-C
- for
VIOLATION OF SECTION 5 OF R.A.

- versus 9165
SASUKE UCHIHA of
Brgy. Uchiha, Konoha City,
Accused.
x ------------------------------------------ x

OPPOSITION TO DEMURRER TO EVIDENCE

The People of the Philippines oppose the Demurrer and Motion to
Dismiss of Accused Sasuke Uchiha, an individual.

Accused and his counsels Demurrer seeks to dismiss the complaint by

alleging the irregularity in the performance of the official duties by the police
officers which is crucial to the chain of custody of the seized items. It stated
that in the case of People vs. Kamad, GR No. 187736, the Court enumerated
therein the different links that the prosecution must establish with respect to
the chain of custody in a buy-bust operation, namely:
First, the seizure and marking, if practicable, of the illegal drug
recovered from the accused by the apprehending officer;
Second, the turnover of the illegal drug seized by the apprehending
officer to the investigating officer;
Third, the turnover by the investigating officer of the illegal drug to the
forensic chemist for laboratory examination; and
Fourth, the turnover and submission of the marked illegal drug seized
by the forensic chemist to the court.

In the first link, he alleged that no documentation as to the physical

inventory of the confiscated items was presented, and if the same were, for a
fact, already marked prior to the inventory, Exhibit A, the Sinumpaang
Salaysay, could have stated it.
Getting back to his claim of the chain of custody, the first link provides
the seizure and marking, if practicable, of the illegal drug recovered from the
accused by the apprehending officer. The defendants might have not
carefully understood what they are claiming, for that does not even require
the necessity of putting markings because of the words if practicable.
Moreover, in People vs. Jolongon, neither law nor jurisprudence requires the
presentation of any of the money used in a buy-bust operation. Thus, we can
conceive from it that even if no markings was done on the money used, or it
was not indicated in the Sinumpaang Salaysay, it does not affect the
sufficiency of the presented evidence.

In the second link which provides the turnover of the illegal drug seized
by the apprehending officer to the investigating officer, his defense is quite
untenable, I do not see any point, much as it is palpable, that such turnover
is necessarily important in the chain, or even if it was, it would be obstinate
to turnover the seized items to himself, since he is the apprehending officer,
as well as the investigating officer, which, as the defendants imply, needs to
be consummated and absence of evidence therein results to insufficiency of
evidence.

Proceeding to the third link, to wit: the turnover by the investigating

officer of the illegal drug to the forensic chemist for laboratory examination;
the purpose of which is, as stated in his Demurrer, it would include

testimony about every link in the chain, witnesses would then describe the
precautions to ensure that there had been no change in the condition of the
item and no opportunity for someone not in the chain to have possession of
the same. It is but clear in the testimonies of the witnesses that after
seizure of the items, it was endorsed and brought to the Crime Laboratory
along with PO2 Chouji who was with the police officers involved in the
operation and, as such, is credible and responsible enough of holding the
items until it was brought to the Crime Laboratory. The presented evidence,
specifically, the Laboratory Examination Request, Exhibit B, which was
brought together with the seized items, has sub-markings showing the stamp
mark received, Exhibit B-2, and was signed by one Sarutobi/Police
Superintendent Chief of Police, Exhibit B-3, is evidence sufficient enough to
prove the chain of properly turning over the seized items to the laboratory.

Last in his alleged chain is the turnover and submission of the marked
illegal drug seized by the forensic chemist to the court. This is one thing I,
myself, do not understand the reason for; is the furnished Chemistry Report
or the laboratory examination results insufficient to prove the presence of
illegal drugs in the seized items? For what is it that the turnover of the seized
items to the court be needed for, when in fact, the submitted examination
report already declares the presence of the same? Likewise, it is proved in
Exhibit B-2, that what was received were the seized items which were
already marked prior to the endorsement to the laboratory, and which could
not be tampered any longer. If such link is of necessity, it would be raising
doubts even as to the procedures of the Police and the Crime Laboratory in
such cases, which have been practiced for a long time now, and upon which
all cases regarding drugs will be affected.

What the defendants alleged is that the witnesses shall describe each
and every steps taken in the custody of the seized items to ensure that no
opportunity for someone not in the chain to have possession of the same, to
the end that every person who got hold of the same must be presented as
witnesses in the trial in order to prove the perfect chain of custody of the
item, directing to the guilt of the accused.

Moreover, Sec. 21, Art. 2 of RA No. 9165, which actually provides for
the 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, has been held by the court, even if not followed strictly, to be
acceptable. Ideally, the procedure on the chain of custody should be perfect
and unbroken. Accordingly, however, in People vs. Amansec, a testimony
about a perfect chain is not always the standard as it is almost always
impossible to obtain an unbroken chain. So even if the defendants
Demurrer is to be given merit, the evidence presented by the prosecution is
still, and always will be, sufficient to prove the guilt of the accused beyond
reasonable doubt.

In view of the foregoing, it is respectfully requested that due to the

untenable actions and defenses of the accused and his counsel, and failure
to destroy the prosecutions evidence proving the guilt of the accused
beyond reasonable doubt, their Demurrer to Evidence and Motion to Dismiss
be denied.
September 29, 2012.
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES
JIRAAYA AND LALO