REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES

REGIONAL TRIAL COURT OF LANAO DEL NORTE

12th Judicial Region
Branch Iligan City

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES,

Plaintiff,

-versus- Criminal Case 34343

For: VIOLATION OF
SECTION OF R.A. 9165

PEDRO PENDUKO,
Accused.

x------------------------------------------/

MEMORANDUM FOR THE PROSECUTION

COMES NOW the public prosecution and unto this Honorable Court most
respectfully submit this memorandum and state:

THE CHARGE

Accused (PEDRO) stands charged for violation of Section 5 of Article II of

RA 9165 by virtue of an act instituting the Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act
of 2002 under the following information:

“That on or before August 21, 2018 in the City of Iligan, Philippines, and within
the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the said accused, without authority of the
law, did then and there willfully, unlawfully and feloniously have in his
possession, custody and control 1 plastic sachet of Methamphetamine
Hydrochloride weighing more or less 5 grams locally known as “Shabu”.
Contrary to and in violation of Section 5, Art. II of Republic Act 9165.”

FACTS OF THE CASE

The prosecution alleged that on August 21, 2018 and after the conduct of
surveillance on the suspected illegal drug activities of Pedro, as well as a test-
buy wherein a civilian asset purchased one (1) sachet of suspected shabu worth
₱300.00, Police Superintendent Bon Chon (P/Supt. Chon), formed a buy-bust
team composed of, among others, Police Officer 2 KAREN REYES (PO I
REYES), the designated poseur-buyer, with the rest of the members serving as
backup officers. At around four (4) o'clock in the afternoon of even date, the team
proceeded to CHOI's house located at Brgy. Tambis, Tambo and upon arrival
thereat, PO 2 REYES approached Pedro and bought a sachet of suspected
shabu worth ₱500.00, handing as payment the marked money. As soon as PO 2
REYES received the sachet, he gave the pre-arranged signal and the other team
members, who were stationed more or less 15-20 meters from the target area,
approached, causing Pedro to run and hide in his room. The team followed
Pedro inside CHOI’s house where he was eventually arrested for selling shabu.
A subsequent search of the premises produced the following: One (1) sachet on
the wooden frames nailed to a wall inside the house. After which, they were
brought to the Iligan City Police Office, Camp Tiffany, where P/Supt. Chon signed
one (1) Receipt for Property Seized as witnessed by barangay officials Benito
Pogi, Leon Daleon, and Felipe Chacha.

Days after, at around 10:35 in the morning of August 28, 2018 P/Supt.
Chon delivered the drug specimens to the Philippine Drug Enforcement Agency
(PDEA) office in Iligan where it was received and acknowledged by a certain
Police Officer 3 Bernardo Bernardo (P03 Bernardo), who, in turn, turned over the
items on the same day to the Philippine National Police (PNP) Regional Crime
Laboratory Office 10 and were received by Forensic Chemist Police Senior
Inspector Lito Lapud (P/Sr. Insp. Lapid) for examination. In Chemistry Report No.
D-300-2003,17 P/Sr. Insp. Cruto confirmed that the substance inside 1 sachet
(marked as MLC-1) were positive for methylamphetamine hyrdrochloride or
shabu, an illegal drug.

ISSUES

1. WHETHER OR NOT THE ARREST WAS LAWFUL.

2. WHETHER OR NOT THE ACCUSED IS GUILTY OF SELLING OR
TRADING THE DANGEROUS DRUG.

DISCUSSION

The Arrest of Pedro was lawful

In People v. Bio¹, it ruled that, “In order to secure the conviction of an

accused charged with illegal possession of dangerous drugs, the prosecution
must prove: (a) that the accused was in possession of an item or object identified
as a dangerous drug; (b) such possession was not authorized by law; and (c) the
accused freely and consciously possessed the said drug.

In People v Sumili,² “Finally, the prosecution must establish the following

elements to convict an accused charged with illegal sale of dangerous drugs: (a)
the identity of the buyer and the seller, the object and the consideration; and (b)
the delivery of the thing sold and the payment.

In the case, People v. Viterbo³, Jurisprudence states that in these cases, it

is essential that the identity of the seized drug/paraphernalia be established with
moral certainty. Thus, in order to obviate any unnecessary doubts on such
identity, the prosecution has to show an unbroken chain of custody over the
same. It must be able to account for each link in the chain of custody over the
dangerous drug/paraphernalia from the moment of seizure up to its presentation
in court as evidence of the corpus delicti.

Holding that all the elements of the crimes for which Pedro was convicted
were present, the apprehending officers duly complied with the chain of custody
rule and the mandatory requirements under Section 21 (a), Article II of the
Implementing Rules and Regulations (IRR) of RA 9165, as P/Supt. Chon
narrated in detail the conduct of the buy-bust operation and the due diligence he
exercised to ensure that the very same confiscated sachets of shabu were the
ones submitted to the PDEA for examination and eventually presented in court.
 The policemen never failed to identify the accused therefore, such arrest
is lawful.
Pedro was selling or trading the dangerous drug

As aptly held by the Supreme Court in Malillin v. People:

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.

All the elements for the prosecution of illegal possession of dangerous

drugs present as drugs were found within the premises of CHOI's residence, i.e.,
in the chicken cage, the wooden frames inside the house, and in a pail outside
the house. Moreover, the prosecution was able to show that the drug
paraphernalia confiscated from the premises of CHOI's residence were used in
smoking, consuming, administering, ingesting or introducing dangerous drugs
into the body. Likewise, all the elements for the illegal sale of dangerous drugs
were proven, noting that the sale of the shabu was consummated and Pedro was
positively identified as the seller.

PRAYER

WHEREFORE, in view of all the foregoing, Prosecution respectfully prays

that a Decision be rendered finding the Accused Pedro Penduko is guilty beyond
reasonable doubt for the violation of Section 5 of Article II of RA 9165 by virtue of
an act instituting the Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002.
Other reliefs just and equitable in the premises are likewise prayed for.

Iligan City, 15 April 2019

Sgd JUAN DE LA
CRUZ
Counsel for the
Prosecution

Copy furnished:

Copy Furnished:
Hon.Charlie Chaplin
City Prosecutor
City Prosecutor’s Office
Hall of Justice, Iligan City

¹People v. Bio, 753 Phil. 730, 736 (2015).

²People v. Sumili, 753 Phil. 342, 348 (2015).
³People v. Viterbo, 739 Phil. 598, 601 (2014).

REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES

REGIONAL TRIAL COURT OF LANAO DEL NORTE
12th Judicial Region
Branch Iligan City

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES,

Plaintiff,
-versus- Criminal Case 343434
For: VIOLATION OF
SECTION 5 OF R.A. 9165
PEDRO PENDUKO,
Accused.

x------------------------------------------/

MEMORANDUM FOR THE ACCUSED

COMES NOW, the accused by the undersigned counsel and unto this
Honorable Court, most respectfully submit this Memorandum:

THE CHARGE

Accused (PEDRO) stands charged for violation of Section 5 of Article II of

RA 9165 by virtue of an act instituting the Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act
of 2002 under the following information:

“That on or before August 21, 2018 in the City of Iligan, Philippines, and within
the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the said accused, without authority of the
law, did then and there willfully, unlawfully and feloniously have in his
possession, custody and control 1 plastic sachet of Methamphetamine
Hydrochloride weighing more or less 5 grams locally known as “Shabu”.
Contrary to and in violation of Section 5, Art. II of Republic Act 9165.”

EVIDENCE FOR THE PROSECUTION

In proving the criminal liability of the accused, the prosecution presented

the police officers: PO1 KAREN REYES and SPO1 RUDY RODRIGUEZ, as
poseur-buyer and the arresting officer, acting respectively.

EVIDENCE FOR THE DEFENSE

In belying the allegations of the prosecution, the defense presented the

accused, PEDRO PENDUKO as the alleged target of the buy-bust operation.

FACTS OF THE CASE

 On 21 August 2018, at around 9:00 P.M, together with his friend
ERNESTO CHOI in their house in Brgy. Tambis, Tambo, Iligan City was
watching football in the television. PEDRO went outside to breathe some fresh
air in their balcony. Somebody whom he do not know personally was looking for
CHOI, so PEDRO approached the gate and identified the person as P02 KAREN
REYES. At the time REYES was wearing civilian clothing and asked PEDRO if
can REYES ask him a few questions about a resident nearby whom REYES was
looking for. REYES showed a picture, handed it to PEDRO and upon giving it
back, REYES placed something inside PEDRO’S right pocket. PEDRO took it out
and saw a plastic sachet containing shabu. It was at that moment when PAWLIS
appeared and informed PEDRO that this is an entrapment operation. PAWLIS
demanded twenty thousand pesos (P20,000.00) from PEDRO or else PAWLIS
AND REYES will arrest PEDRO for selling drugs. When PEDRO refused to pay
the said amount, PAWLIS placed handcuffs on PEDRO and brought PEDRO to
the police station. PEDRO strongly believes that PAWLIS filed the complaint to
extort money from PEDRO and to harass PEDRO.

ISSUES

1. WHETHER OR NOT THE ARREST WAS LAWFUL.

2. WHETHER OR NOT THE ACCUSED IS GUILTY OF SELLING OR
TRADING THE DANGEROUS DRUG.

DISCUSSION

The arrest was unlawful

Section 3 Article 1 of RA 9165 defines “sell” as any act of giving away any
dangerous drug and/or controlled precursor and essential chemical whether for
money or any other consideration.

To secure a conviction for illegal sale of dangerous drugs under Section 5,

Article II of RA 9165, the prosecution must establish the following elements: (1)
the identity of the buyer and the seller, the object of the sale and its
consideration; and (2) the delivery of the thing sold and the payment therefor.¹ It
is important is that the sale transaction of drugs actually took place and that the
object of the transaction is properly presented as evidence in court and is shown
to be the same drugs seized from the accused.

The lack of specific details on the planning and conduct of the buybust
operation on 21 August 2018 in Brgy. Tambis, Tambo, Iligan City casts serious
doubts that it actually took place and/or that the police officers carried out the
same in the regular performance of their official duties. Relevant herein is the
following discourse of the Court on buy-bust operations in People v. Ong²:

A buy-bust operation is a form of entrapment, which in recent years has

been accepted as a valid means of arresting violators of the Dangerous Drugs
Law. It is commonly employed by police officers as an effective way of
apprehending law offenders in the act of committing a crime. In a buy-bust
operation, the idea to commit a crime originates from the offender, without
anybody inducing or prodding him to commit the offense. Its opposite is
instigation or inducement, wherein the police or its agent lures the accused into
committing the offense in order to prosecute him. Instigation is deemed contrary
to public policy and considered an absolutory cause.
 To determine whether there was a valid entrapment or whether proper
procedures were undertaken in effecting the buy-bust operation, it is incumbent
upon the courts to make sure that the details of the operation are clearly and
adequately laid out through relevant, material and competent evidence. For, the
courts could not merely rely on but must apply with studied restraint the
presumption of regularity in the performance of official duty by law enforcement
agents. This presumption should not by itself prevail over the presumption of
innocence and the constitutionally protected rights of the individual. It is the duty
of courts to preserve the purity of their own temple from the prostitution of the
criminal law through lawless enforcement. Courts should not allow themselves to
be used as instruments of abuse and injustice lest innocent persons are made to
suffer the unusually severe penalties for drug offenses.

In People v. Doria³, we stressed the "objective" test in buy-bust

operations. We ruled that in such operations, the prosecution must present a
complete picture detailing the transaction, which "must start from the initial
contact between the poseur-buyer and the pusher, the offer to purchase, the
promise or payment of the consideration until the consummation of the sale by
the delivery of the illegal drug subject of the sale. We emphasized that the
manner by which the initial contact was made, the offer to purchase the drug, the
payment of the 'buy-bust' money, and the delivery of the illegal drug must be the
subject of strict scrutiny by courts to insure that law-abiding citizens are not
unlawfully induced to commit an offense."

In the present case, the prosecution evidence about the buy-bust

operation is incomplete. The confidential informant who had sole knowledge of
how the alleged illegal sale of shabu started and how it was perfected was not
presented as a witness. His testimony was given instead by PO 1 REYES who
had no personal knowledge of the same. On this score, PO 1 REYES' testimony
is hearsay and possesses no probative value unless it can be shown that the
same falls within the exception to the hearsay rule.

Clearly the elements above-mentioned were lacking thus the arrest was
invalid.

Pedro is not guilty of selling or trading dangerous drugs

On the other hand, for illegal possession of dangerous drugs, the following
elements must be established: "[1] the accused was in possession of dangerous
drugs; [2] such possession was not authorized by law; and [3] the accused was
freely and consciously aware of being in possession of dangerous drugs."

There was none to be established to arrest PEDRO under the elements

stated above. Significantly, in the present case, only one sachet of shabu was
confiscated from accused-appellant [PEDRO], the one subject of the sale. No
further evidence was shown that he was further apprehended in possession of
another quantity of prohibited drugs not covered by or included in the sale. As
correctly argued by the Prosecution, the accused cannot be convicted for
possession of the prohibited drugs he sold because possession of dangerous
drugs is generally inherent in the crime of sale.

In People v. Posada4, the Supreme Court ruled that possession of

prohibited or dangerous drugs is absorbed in the sale thereof, citing the case of
People v. Lacema x x x.
 In the prosecution’s narration of facts, the two policemen who were
looking for CHOI intended to get near me but did not hand anything nor did the
accused. There was no shabu found inside PEDRO’s pocket or did the
policemen saw that he was selling shabu.

PRAYER

WHEREFORE, in view of all the foregoing, it is respectfully prayed of this

Honorable Court that the accused be ACQUITTED for failure of the prosecution
to prove beyond reasonable doubt and with moral certainty the guilt of the
accused.

PUBLIC ATTORNEY’S
OFFICE
Hall of Justice, Iligan City

By:
DAISY VINA
Counsel for the Accused

Copy Furnished:
Hon.Charlie Chaplin
City Prosecutor
City Prosecutor’s Office
Hall of Justice, Iligan City

¹People v. Alberto, 625 Phil. 545, 554 (2010) citing People v. Dumlao, 584 Phil.
732, 739 (2009)
²People v. Ong, GR No.174773, Oct.2, 2007
³People v. Doria, GR No.125299, July 8, 2012
4People v. Posada, GR No.196052, Sept.2, 2015