You are on page 1of 11

Republic of the Philippines

REGIONAL TRIAL COURT


Third Judicial Region
BRANCH 58
Angeles City

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, R-ANG-17-00862-CR

-versus- -f o r-

ROMEO BATO ROPEROS “VIOLATION OF SECTION 5,


Accused. ARTICLE II OF R.A. 9165”
x---------------------------------------x
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, R-ANG-17-00863-CR

-versus- -f o r-

“VIOLATION OF SECTION 11,


ARTICLE II OF R.A. 9165”
ROMEO BATO ROPEROS
Accused.
x---------------------------------------x

ORDER

For resolution is the Demurrer to Evidence dated May 18, 2018 filed by
the accused on the ground of the insufficiency of prosecution’s evidence to
establish his guilt beyond reasonable doubt.

THE CHARGE

In two (2) Informations1 dated 27 March 2017 the State charged


accused ROMEO BATO ROPEROS for separate violations of Sections 5 and
11, Article II of Republic Act No. 9165 otherwise known as the
“Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002”, allegedly committed as
follows:

R-ANG-16-00862-CR

“That on or about the 24th day of March 2017, in the City of


Angeles, Province of Pampanga, Philippines, and within the
jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the above-named accused,
did then and there, willfully, unlawfully and feloniously sell and/or
deliver to a poseur buyer one (1) heat sealed transparent plastic
sachet containing Methamphetamine Hydrochloride (Shabu)
weighing more or less TWO HUNDRED SIXTY EIGHT
THOUSANDTHS OF A GRAM (0.268 gram), which is a
dangerous drug, without authority whatsoever.”

1
Records, pp. 1.
ORDER Page 2 of 11
PP vs. VICTOR TELMO y IMPAS
x--------------------------------------------x

R-ANG-16-03095-CR

“That on or about the 24th day of March 2017, in the City of


Angeles, Province of Pampanga, Philippines, and within the
jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the above-named accused,
did then and there, willfully, unlawfully and feloniously have in his
possession/constructive posession, custody and control five (5)
heat sealed transparent plastic sachet containing
Methamphetamine Hydrochloride (Shabu) both weighing more
or less as follows:

THREE HUNDRED SIXTY THOUSANDTHS (0.360) OF A


GRAM
TWO HUNDRED THIRTY SEVEN THOUSANDTHS (0.237) OF
A GRAM
TWENTY EIGHT THOUSANDTHS (0.028) OF A GRAM
FIFTY-THREE THOUSANDTHS (0.053) OF A GRAM
Or a cumulative weight of EIGHT HUNDRED THIRTY FIVE
THOUSANDTHS (0.835) OF A GRAM, which is a dangerous
drug, without authority whatsoever.”

Accused pleaded NOT GUILTY to each offense charged.

During pre-trial, the prosecution and defense entered into the following
stipulations:

Admission by the defense:

1. Identity of the accused as the person charged and


arraigned in this case.

Admission by the prosecution:

1. That the person who issued the Chemistry Report did not
have any personal knowledge as from whom, where and how
these objects were seized or collected.

The prosecution dispensed with the testimony of the Forensic Chemist.


Agent Jayson Albao and Agent Arnold Fiel R. Navarro testified for the
witnesses.

PROSECUTION’S EVIDENCE

First prosecution witness, PO1 Florencio Baldonade Jr., a member of


Philippine National Police assigned at police station 3 Anti-Illegal Drug
Enforcement Team, Angeles City, identified the Joint Affidavit of
Apprehension [ Exhibit “A”]2 he executed with his co-affiant PO2 John
Christopher Velazquez y Guilas.

On direct-examination, he testified that after information was given by


the civilian informant briefing regarding the possible conduct of the anti-

2
Exhibit “A”
ORDER Page 3 of 11
PP vs. VICTOR TELMO y IMPAS
x--------------------------------------------x

illegal drug operation ensued. During the briefing he was tasked by PCI
Rainer Mercado to act as a poseur buyer. They used his own Php 5003 to
buy the drugs since no money was available at that time. He then marked
the money with the accused’s initials “RBR”. After the civilian informant told
them that a certain Romy was selling drugs they were able to verify the
alleged drug dealer’s true name which was Romeo Bato Roperos because
he was subjected to Tokhang. During the briefing the civilian texted the
accused if they could meet to which Romeo replied and advised them to
proceed to his house at Airwolf Village, Purok 9, Brgy. Pulung Maragul,
Angeles City.

With PO2 Villanueva serving as backup together with four other team
members and the informant they headed to the target area. The informant
then introduced him to Romeo as his friend who was an OFW and a buyer of
illegal drugs He then handed the Php 500 marked money.

After handing the Php 500 bill Romeo then handed him a plastic sachet
which containing suspected shabu. Upon receiving the sachet he then
scrathed his left shoulder as a pre-arranged signal. His backup PO2
Velasquez then approached to help with the arrest. He then conducted a
body search and was able to retrieve from Romeo another Php 500 bill and
another five transparent plastic sachets from his right pocket. PO2 Villanueva
then appraised Romeo of his constitutional rights.

He then marked the confiscated evidence as FB for the sachet that was
sold to him and FB1, FB2, FB3, FB4, FB5 and FB6 for the other confiscated
sachets.4 The same were marked in the crime scene in front of the suspect
and his wife who were in front of him at the time.

They then went to the Police Station 5 for proper inventory because it
was already dark. They then summoned the barangay and media
representatives to signed the prepared Confiscation Receipt and then
proceeded to the DOJ representative to sign the Confiscation Receipt.5
Afterwards, they went back to the police station to request for a crime lab
examination.6

Delivery of the sachets to the crime lab were made by him and PO2
Velasquez. The results of the crime lab tested positive for Methamphetamine
Hydrochloride.7

In connection with the filing of these charges, he enumerated the


documents prepared such as the Joint Affidavit,8 Certification of the COP,9
Spot Report,10 Custodial Investigation Report,11 the Results of the Laboratory

3
Exhibit “J”
4
Exhibit “K”
5
Exhibit “I”
6
Exhibit “G-H”
7
Exhibit “E-F”
8
Exhibit “A”
9
Exhibit “B”
10
Exhibit “D”
11
Exhibit “C”
ORDER Page 4 of 11
PP vs. VICTOR TELMO y IMPAS
x--------------------------------------------x

Examination,12 Picture of the suspect, Marked Money,13 Pre-operational


Report, Request for Drug Test,14 Confiscation Receipt,15 Mugshot

During cross-examination he admitted that he already knew the name


of the accused before the buy-bust operation and that he also marked the
Php 500 bill with his initials FB which he did not state in his affidavit. Aside
from his testimony, there was no proof to show that he indeed marked the
pieces in the crime scene. The markings on the sachets that were
confiscated that were different markings placed on the back other that those
placed on the front and that the markings in front of the sachet were marked
1 below FB instead of FB1 and so on. By the time the media and barangay
personel arrived at the police station the confiscation receipt was already
prepared. That when the items were sent to the crime lab it was personally
received by PCI Timario and PCI Bautista but PCI Timario’s signature is not
affixed on the PNP ACCLO stamp in the first page of the Request for
Laboratory Examination.16 There was no photographs of the markings of the
pieces of evidence at the crime scene.

RULING ON THE DEMURRER

In criminal cases, the quantum of evidence is proof beyond reasonable


doubt.17 The onus probandi lies in the hands of the prosecution to prove
beyond reasonable doubt the guilt of the accused on the each offense
charged. This is in consonance with the constitutionally guaranteed
accused’s right of presumption of innocence.18

R-ANG-16-00862-CR

For the successful prosecution of Illegal Sale of Dangerous Drugs


under Section 5 of Article II, R.A. 9165, the prosecution must establish the
following elements: 1) the identities of the buyer, seller, object and
consideration, and 2) the delivery of the thing sold and the payment for it.19

R-ANG-16-00863-CR

On the other hand, for Illegal Possession of Dangerous Drugs under


Section 11 of Article II, R.A. 9165, the prosecution must prove the following
requisites: (a) the accused was in possession of an item or object that is
identified as dangerous drugs; (b) such possession was not authorized by
law; and (c) the accused freely and consciously possessed the said drugs.20

In prosecution involving narcotics, the substance itself constitutes the


very corpus delicti of the offense and the fact of its existence is vital to sustain
a judgment of conviction beyond reasonable doubt. The identity of the

12
Exhibit “E-F”
13
Exhibit “J”
14
Exhibit “H”
15
Exhibit “I”
16
Exhibit “G”
17
Section 2, Rule 133 of the Rules of Court.
18
Section 14, paragraph 2, Article III (Bill of Rights) of the 1987 Philippine Constitution.
19
People vs. Bio, G.R. No. 195850, February 16, 2015, 753 SCRA 730.
20
People vs. Punzalan, G.R. No. 199087, November 11, 2015, 774 SCRA 653; People vs. Posada, G.R. No.
196052, September 02, 2015; People vs. Bolo, G.R. No. 200295, August 19, 2015, 767 SCRA 591; People vs.
Miranda, G.R. No. 209338, June 29, 2015, 760 SCRA 578; People vs. Mercado, 753 SCRA 167.
ORDER Page 5 of 11
PP vs. VICTOR TELMO y IMPAS
x--------------------------------------------x

narcotic substance must therefore be established beyond reasonable


doubt.21 To prove the corpus delicti, it is indispensable for the prosecution to
show that the dangerous drug subject of the sale or possession and
examined in the laboratory is the same drug presented in court as
evidence.22 So apart from showing that the elements of sale or possession
are present, the fact that the dangerous drug illegally sold or possessed is
the same drug offered in court as exhibit must likewise be established with
the same degree of certitude as that needed to sustain a guilty verdict.23 It is
then of utmost importance that the integrity and identity of the sold or seized
drugs must be shown to have been duly preserved. The chain of custody
requirement performs this function of ensuring the preservation of the
integrity and evidentiary value of the seized items as it ensures that
unnecessary doubts respecting the identity of the evidence are removed.24
This crucial role played by the chain of custody rule in the preservation of the
identity of the dangerous drugs was plainly explained in People vs.
Angngao.25

“The State should establish beyond doubt the identity of the


dangerous drugs by showing that the dangerous drugs offered in
court as evidence were the same substance bought during the
buy-bust operation. This requirement is complied with by
ensuring that the custody of the seized drugs from the time of
confiscation until presentation in court is safeguarded under what
is referred to as the chain of custody by Republic Act (RA) No.
9165, whose objective is to remove unnecessary doubts
concerning the identity of the evidence.”

Dangerous Drug Board Circular No. 1 Series of 2002, which


implements R.A. 9165 defines “chain of custody” as the duly recorded
authorized movements and custody of seized drugs or controlled chemicals
or plants 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.26 Such record of
movement and custody of the seized items shall include identity and
signature of the person who held temporary custody of the seized items, the
date and time such transfer of custody were made in the course of
safekeeping and use in court as evidence, and the final disposition.

For such evidence to be admissible, in People vs. Dela Rosa,27 it was


held that the prosecution must establish by records or testimony the
continuous whereabouts of the exhibit from the time it came into the
possession of the police officers, until it was tested in the laboratory to
determine the composition, and all the way it was offered in evidence.

As a means of ensuring the establishment of the chain of custody Sec.


21 (1) of RA 9165, as amended by RA 10640, mandates that:

21
People vs. Suan, G.R. No. 184546, February 22, 2010.
22
People vs. Junaide, G.R. No. 193856, April 21, 2014, 722 SCRA 320.
23
People vs. Gayoso, G.R. No. 206590, March 27, 2017.
24
People vs. Barte, G.R. No. 179749, March 1, 2017; People vs. Villarta, 781 SCRA 497.
25
G.R. No. 189296, March 11, 2015, 752 SCRA 531.
26
People vs. Breis, G.R. No. 205823, August 17, 2015, 767 SCRA 40; People vs. Alagarme, G.R. No.
184789, February 23, 2015, 751 SCRA 317; People vs. Villarta, G.R. No. 205610, July 30, 2014 731 SCRA
40; People vs. Langua, 690 SCRA 123.
27
G.R. No. 185166, January 26, 2011, 640 SCRA 635.
ORDER Page 6 of 11
PP vs. VICTOR TELMO y IMPAS
x--------------------------------------------x

“The apprehending team having initial custody and control of the


dangerous drugs, controlled precursors and essential chemicals,
instruments/paraphernalia and/or laboratory equipment shall,
immediately after seizure and confiscation, conduct a physical
inventory of the seized items 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, with an elected
public official and a representative of the National Prosecution Service
or the media 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, finally, That noncompliance of 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 and custody over said items.”

Pursuant therefore to its saving clause, non-compliance with the


directives of Section 21, Article II of R.A. 9165 as amended is not necessary
fatal to the prosecution’s cause or it will not automatically render the seizure
and custody of the items void and invalid when: a) there is a justifiable ground
for the non-compliance, and b) the integrity and evidentiary value of the
seized items and property were properly preserved by the apprehending
police officers.28

How the chain of custody or movement of the seized evidence should


be maintained and why this must be shown by evidence was explained in
Malillin vs. People.29

“As a method of authenticating evidence, the chain of custody


rule requires that the admission of an exhibit be preceded by
evidence sufficient to support a finding that the matter in question
is what the proponent claims it to be. It would include testimony
about every link in the chain, from the moment the item was
picked up to the time it is offered into evidence, in such a way
that every person who touched the exhibit would describe how
and from whom it was received, where it was and what happened
to it while in the witness’ possession, the condition in which it was
received and the condition in which it was delivered to the next
link in the chain. These witnesses would then described the
precautions taken 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.”

“The failure to follow the procedure mandated under R.A. No.


9165 and its IRR must be adequately explained. The justifiable
ground for non-compliance must be proven as a fact.”

28
People vs. Viterbo, G.R. No. 203434, July 22, 2014; People vs. Martinez G.R. No. 191366, December 13,
2010; People vs. Abetong, G.R. No. 209785, June 4, 2014, 725 SCRA 304.
29
576 Phil. 576, 587 (2008).
ORDER Page 7 of 11
PP vs. VICTOR TELMO y IMPAS
x--------------------------------------------x

In People vs. Beran,30 it was clearly held that the prosecution bears the
burden of proving justifiable cause for non-compliance with the requirements
under Section 21 of R.A. 9165.

With their failure to conduct the required inventory and photograph


conformably to the directives of Section 21 of RA 9165, the police officers
failed to follow the chain of custody rule in the handling of the sold or seized
drugs in order to preserve their identity and evidentiary value. Non-
compliance is tantamount to failure in establishing identity of corpus delicti,
an essential element of the prosecution of illegal sale or possession of
dangerous drug.31

On the required physical inventory

According to the lone prosecution witness the barangay official, media


representative and DOJ representative were not present when he conducted
the physical inventory. When the media representative and barangay official
arrived to the police station they merely signed the already prepared
Confiscation Receipt32 Items and then they proceeded to the back of the
station where the DOJ representative was located and he also merely signed
the same. Thus, this inventory, if any, was already finished when the
Confiscation Receipt and the subject items were presented to them. In the
recent case of People vs. Cripso,33 the rationale on the presence of the
official and representative of the media and DOJ during the physical
inventory is spelled out:

“The law requires the presence of an elected public official, s well as


representatives from the DOJ and the media is to ensure that the chain
of custody rule is observed and thus, remove any suspicion of tampering,
switching, planting, or contamination of evidence which could considerably
affect the case.”

Verily, the inventory, if any, was not done in the presence of the
barangay official, DOJ and Media representative as mandated by Section 21
of R.A. 9165.

Such non-compliance with the prescribed procedure on the required


physical inventory of the subject items was not explained at all by the
prosecution’s witness nor justifiable excuse offered thereof.

In People vs. Guzman34 the presentation of factual proof of the


justifiable grounds for non-compliance with the procedure prescribed by R.A.
9165 was emphasized.

“The failure to follow the procedure mandated under R.A. No. 9165 and
its IRR must be adequately explained. The justifiable ground for non-
compliance must be proven as fact.”

30
G.R. No. 203028, January 15, 2014.
31
People vs. Dela Cruz, G.R. No. 205821, October 1, 2014.
32
Exhibit “I”
33
G.R. No. 230065, March 14, 2018
34
G.R. No. 186498, March 26, 2010
ORDER Page 8 of 11
PP vs. VICTOR TELMO y IMPAS
x--------------------------------------------x

In People vs. Beran35 it was clearly held that the prosecution bears the
burden of proving justifiable cause for non-compliance with the requirements
under Section 21 of R.A. 9195

With the failure to conduct the required physical inventory the police officers
failed to follow the chain of custody rule in handling of the sold or seized
drugs in order to preserve their identity and evidentiary rule. Non-compliance
is tantamount to failure in establishing identity of corpus delicti, an essential
element of the prosecution of illegal sale or possession of dangerous drugs.36

On the required marking

Marking means the placing by the apprehending police officer or the


poseur buyer of his/her initials and signature on the items seized.37 The
marking of evidence serves to separate the marked evidence from the corpus
delicti of all other similar or related evidence from the time they are seized
from the accused until they are disposed of at the end of the criminal
proceedings, thus, preventing switching, planting, or contamination of
evidence.38 Marking is the starting point in the custodial link because
succeeding handlers of the specimens will use the markings as reference.39

What Section 21 of R.A. No. 9165 and its implementing rule do not
expressly specify is the matter of marking of the seized items in warrantless
seizure to ensure that the evidence seized upon apprehension is the same
evidence subjected to inventory and photography when these activities are
undertaken at the police station rather than at the place of arrest.
Consistency with the “chain of custody” rule, however, requires that the
marking of the seized items to truly ensure that they are the same items that
enter the chain and are eventually the ones offered in evidence should be
done (1) in the presence of the apprehended violator (2) immediately upon
confiscation.40

In light of the chain of custody rule, in People vs. Kamad,41 reiterated


in People vs. Dacuma,42 the Court identified the links that the prosecution
must establish in the chain of custody in a buy-bust situation to be as follows:
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 to the 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.

As how to prove the four links in the chain of custody requirements, in


Malillin vs. People,43 the Court laid down that 1) there must be testimony
about every link in the chain from the moment the item was picked up to the
time it is offered also as evidence; and 2) the witnesses should describe the
35
G.R. 203028, January 15, 2014
36
People vs. Dela Cruz, G.R. 205821, October 1, 2014
37
People vs. Dahil, G.R. No. 212196, January 12, 2015, 745 SCRA 221; People vs. Nuarin, G.R. No.
188698, July 22, 2015, 763 SCRA 504
38
People vs. Sorin, G.R. No. 212635, March 25, 2015, 754 SCRA 594
39
People vs. Dacuma, G.R. No. 205889, February 4, 2015, 750 SCRA 65.
40
People vs. Sanchez, G.R. No. 175832, October 15, 2008.
41
G.R. No. 174198, January 19, 2010, 624 Phil. 289, 304-306.
42
G.R. No. 205889, February 04, 2015, 750 SCRA 65.
43
576 Phil. 576, 587 (2008).
ORDER Page 9 of 11
PP vs. VICTOR TELMO y IMPAS
x--------------------------------------------x

precautions taken to ensure that there had been no change in the condition
of the items and no opportunity for someone not in the chain to have
possession of the item.

In the case at bar, the prosecution’s lone witness testified that the
marking was done at the crime scene the in front the accused and the latte’s
wife The lone witness also testified that there were no photographs taken
depicting the accused and the subject item at the scene of the crime.
Aside from the lone testimony of the witness, there is nothing that prove
the marking was done in the presence of the accused. Hence, the marking
conducted did not comply with the required chain of custody rule in order to
preserve the identity and integrity of both the sold and confiscated items as
evidence against him.

In the fresh case of People vs. Año44 citing People vs. Larry Mendoza45,
the Court underscored the importance of the attendance of the accused and
the material witnesses during marking of evidence.

"[w]ithout the insulating presence of the representative from the


media or the [DOJ], or any elected public official during the
seizure and marking of the [seized drugs], the evils of switching,
‘planting’ or contamination of the evidence that had tainted the
buy-busts conducted under the regime of [RA] 6425 (Dangerous
Drugs Act of 1972) again reared their ugly heads as to negate
the integrity and credibility of the seizure and confiscation of the
[said drugs] that were evidence herein of the corpus delicti, and
thus adversely affected the trustworthiness of the incrimination of
the accused. Indeed, the x xx presence of such witnesses would
have preserved an unbroken chain of custody.”

Moreover, on the second link, which is the turnover of the seized drugs
by the confiscating officer to the Investigating officer, the prosecutions lone
witness testified that he merely showed the pieces of evidence to the
investigator, SPO4 Edgar B. Avillon and that he never surrendered the
custody of the subject items to the latter. This was also the gist of the
testimony of the investigator SPO4 Edgar Avillon by way of stipulations
entered into by the prosecution and the defense on 09 May 2018.

As held in People v. Dahil,46 it is highly improbable for an


investigator in a drug-related case to effectively perform his work
without having custody of the seized item. Said by the Court:

“Usually, the police officer who seizes the suspected substance turns
it over to a supervising officer, who will then send it by courier to the police
crime laboratory for testing.42 This is a necessary step in the chain of
custody because it will be the investigating officer who shall conduct the
proper investigation and prepare the necessary documents for the
developing criminal case. Certainly, the investigating officer must have
possession of the illegal drugs to properly prepare the required documents.”

44
G.R. No. 230070, March 14, 2018.
45
G.R. No. 192432, June 23, 2014.
46
G.R. No. 212196, January 12, 2015.
ORDER Page 10 of 11
PP vs. VICTOR TELMO y IMPAS
x--------------------------------------------x

As to the fourth link, the prosecution and defense decided to enter into
stipulations regarding with the testimony of the Forensic Chemist and it was
not stipulated as to how the Forensic Chemist kept the seized shabu until it
was transferred to this Court. It was not presented how to how the object
evidence was preserved after Forensic Chemist conducted his examination
on the specimen. As held in the case of People v. Dahil, 47 it was ruled that
forensic chemist should have personally testified on the safekeeping of the
drugs.
The last link involves the submission of the seized drugs by the forensic
chemist to the court when presented as evidence in the criminal case. No
testimonial or documentary evidence was given whatsoever as to how
the drugs were kept while in the custody of the forensic chemist until it
was transferred to the court. The forensic chemist should have personally
testified on the safekeeping of the drugs but the parties resorted to a general
stipulation of her testimony. Although several subpoena were sent to the
forensic chemist, only a brown envelope containing the seized drugs
arrived in court. Sadly, instead of focusing on the essential links in the
chain of custody, the prosecutor propounded questions concerning the
location of the misplaced marked money, which was not even
indispensable in the criminal case.

All told, the failure of the prosecution to establish the evidence’s chain
of custody is fatal to its case as the Court can no longer consider, or even
safely assume that the integrity and evidentiary value of the purchased or
confiscated dangerous drugs were properly preserved.48

The presumption of innocence of an accused in a criminal case is a


basic constitutional principle, fleshed out by procedure rules which place on
the prosecution the burden of proving that an accused is guilty of the offense
charged by proof beyond reasonable doubt. Corollary thereto, conviction
must rest on the strength of the prosecution’s evidence and not the weakness
of the defense.49 If the prosecution fails to meet the required quantum of
evidence, the defense may logically not even present evidence on its own
behalf. In which case, the presumption of innocence shall prevail and hence,
the accused shall be acquitted.50

As elucidated in People vs. Andaya.51

“xx In every criminal prosecution, it is the State, and no other, that


bears the burden of proving the illegal sale of the dangerous drug
beyond reasonable doubt. This responsibility imposed on the
State accords with the presumption of innocence in favor of the
accused, which has no duty to prove his innocence until and
unless the presumption of innocence in his favor has been
overcome by sufficient and competent evidence.”

WHEREFORE, for insufficiency of the prosecution’s evidence the Court


GRANTS the DEMURRER TO EVIDENCE. Both charges of Illegal Sale of
Dangerous Drugs and Illegal Possession of Dangerous Drug under Sections

47
G.R. No. 212196, January 12, 2015
48
People vs. Constantino, Jr., G.R. No. 199689, March 12, 2014, 719 SCRA 177.
49
People vs. Maraorao, G.R. No. 174369, June 20, 2012.
50
People vs. Santos, G.R. No. 175593, October 17, 2007.
51
G.R. No. 183700, October 13, 2014.
ORDER Page 11 of 11
PP vs. VICTOR TELMO y IMPAS
x--------------------------------------------x

5 and 11 Article II of R.A. 9165 against accused ROMEO BATO ROPEROS


are hereby DISMISSED.

In view thereof, the Warden of the Angeles City District Jail is directed
to release ROMEO BATO ROPEROS from detention immediately upon
receipt hereof, unless he is being detained for some other lawful cause/s.

SO ORDERED.

Angeles City, July 5, 2018.

IRINEO PINEDA PANGILINAN, JR.


Judge

(ejrc)

cc: Prosecutor Jaime Mateo Umlas (Counsel for the State)


Atty. Mary Anne E. Dizon-Baculo (Counsel for the Accused)
Victor Telmo y Impas(Accused)
Philippine Drug Enforcement Agency, Regional Office III, San
Fernando Pampanga (Agent Jayson Albao; Agent Arnold Fiel R.
Navarro
Warden of the Angeles City District Jail