Pp vs. Padillo Crim. Case No.

20081 and 20082

February 12, 2018

Witness: P/Supt. Pinky Sayson Acog

For the State: Prosecutor Aida I. Digaum-Langcamon
For the Accused: Atty. Rainero Z. Bautista

The testimony of this witness is offered to prove and establish, in addition to

the stipulation of the defense counsel, the qualification of the witness is Forensic
Chemist Officer of the Bohol Provincial Crime Laboratory Office. In line of that
position, she received sachets involving the accused for violation of Section 5 and
11 of R.A. 9165; she conducted qualitative examination and tested positive for the
presence of methamphetamine hydrochloride; she will testify regarding the receipt
of the sachets for examination and she will identify the sachet subject of the
examination as well as the report issued relative to her findings that the same tested
positive for the presence of methamphetamine hydrochloride.

DIRECT EXAMINATION ON P/SUPT PINKY SAYSON ACOG BY

PROSECUTOR AIDA DIGAUM LANGCAMON

The prosecution started its direct examination by asking the witness if she
brought with her the specimen subject of Chemistry Report No. 109 and 110 all of
2017 to which the witness answered in the affirmative. The witness identified
Chemistry Report No. D-109-2017 (Exhibit L-Trading) and Chemistry Report No.
D-110-2017 (Exhibit M-Possession) as the original copy of the Chemistry Report
and the same copy she brought to court respectively. The witness also brought one
small heat-sealed transparent plastic sachet, the specimen subject of Chemistry
Report No. D-109-2017 and eight small heat-sealed transparent plastic sachets, the
specimen subject of Chemistry Report No. D-110-2017 turned over to her on
March 23, 2017 at 10:30 o’clock in the morning by PO3 Sudaria. When asked if
she knew PO3 Sudaria, the witness answered that he was one of the duty officer
and organic officer of the Bohol Provincial Police Office. The witness also
identified a document (Exhibit J-Trading) as the same copy of the laboratory
examination request. The laboratory request (Exhibit J-1-Trading) that the witness
brought had a stamp of the Chemistry Section in addition to the stamp of the Bohol
Provincial Crime Laboratory Office because according to the witness it was an
office copy retained in their office during the submission of the letter request
together with the specimen.

When asked how the sachet subject of Chemistry Report No. D-110-2017 came to
her possession, the witness answered that the specimens together with the
laboratory request was received by PO3 Hinay and received by Sudaria and
Sudaria handed it over to her together with the laboratory request. The witness
again identified a request for laboratory examination (Exhibit K) as the same
document as she had and explained that the document marked Exhibit K did not
have a stamp of the chemistry section of her office because the one she brought
was an office copy which was retained in their office. Upon receipt of the sachet
subject of Chemistry Report No. D-109-2017 from PO3 Sudaria, the witness
observed that the specimens were heat sealed and attached to this specimen was a
masking tape with marking MPA-BB-01 with date March 23, 2017 and with
signature. She also observed that all the eight specimens subject of Chemistry
Report No. D-110-2017 were heat sealed with masking tape attached and on the
masking tape bears the marking MPA-01 to MPA-08 all dated March 23, 2017 all
with signatures. Upon receipt of the specimens together with the letter request, the
witness said that she checked whether the specimens submitted tallies, counting the
specimens and also listed on the letter request and she found out that it tallies and
she proceeded to the qualitative examination.

The prosecution later on inquired of the witness’ basis in conducting

qualitative examination to which the witness answered that it was one of the
procedures for determination of the presence of dangerous drugs. The witness
affirmed that Chemistry Report No. D-109-2017 and Chemistry Report No. D-110-
2017 which both yielded positive results for the presence of methamphetamine
hydrochloride were the laboratory report examinations conducted on the one heat-
sealed transparent sachet marked MPA-BB-01 and on the eight sachets
respectively. She also affirmed that the signatures above the name Pinky Sayson
Acog were her signatures. The witness further explained that aside from the
conduct of qualitative examination, they also have to conduct quantitative
examination however the same was not conducted on the specimens since they do
not have gas chromatography and gas spectromatography. The witness added that
as to the purpose of the examination to determine the presence of dangerous drugs,
it does not differ if no quantitative examination was done since the conduct of
qualitative examination also determines the presence of methamphetamine
hydrochloride.

The witness assured that the items she brought to the Court were the very
items covered by her report D-109-2017 and D-110-2017 because aside from the
previous markings MPA-BB-01 with date and signature, she also had her own
marking in red ink 109-2017, the specimen number bears the weight 0.08 grams
and her initial PSA, so with the eight sachets which also had the previous markings
MPA-01 to MPA-08, she also had her markings in red ink specimen no. A-1, B-1,
B-2, C-1 all with corresponding weight and her signature. After the conduct of the
examination, all the specimens were turned over to their Evidence Custodian for
safekeeping. When asked how did it happen that she had in her possession those
items, the witness answered that P03 Rañises handed over to her those specimens.
The witness observed that there were no unusual tampering on the specimens and
they were still in the same condition from the time she received them from Sadoria
to the time she turned over them to the evidence custodian after the conduct of
qualitative examination and up to the time she received them from Police Officer
Rañises. The prosecution then ended its direct examination.
CROSS-EXAMINATION ON P/SUPT PINKY SAYSON ACOG BY ATTY
RAINERO Z. BAUTISTA

The defense started its cross-examination by asking series of questions

regarding the chemical formulation of methamphetamine hydrochloride, of which
the witness confirmed that the formula of methamphetamine hydrochloride is C 10
H15N – HCL, that the small number 10 beside capital letter C stands for the number
of carbon atoms and the small number 15 beside capital letter H is the number of
hydrogen atoms. The witness also agreed that there is only one formula for
methamphetamine hydrochloride so that if it is C 9H14N-HCL or C11H16N-HCL then
it is not methamphetamine hydrochloride because the same has 10 number of
carbon atoms and 15 number of hydrogen atoms. The witness stated that there is an
apparatus that can determine the number of carbon atoms and hydrogen atoms
called DCMS which has two divisions, the chromatography and
spectromatography. The defense discussed the process of gas chromatography to
which the witness affirmed. According to the witness, there is no other apparatus
that can determine the number of carbon atoms and the number of hydrogen atoms.
The witness also agreed that the DCMS costs six to seven million. When asked by
the defense how much is the testing materials available in Camp Dagohoy, the
witness estimated it to be P300.00 per specimen. The defense then emphasized the
difference of Seven Million and P300.00 which would be P6,999,700.00. The
defense then asked if the crime lab in the province have the apparatus, to which the
witness responded none. Asked by the defense if they did request the national
government of the need of the crime lab to have that particular apparatus, the
witness answered that they did and that it was brought up during the PPOC but it
was not granted and that she never had a chance to follow up. The witness affirmed
that up to the present, the province do not have Gas Chromatography and Gas
Spectromatography. The defense interposed that the witness earlier said that what
is lacking is the quantitative examination to which the witness explained that it was
not lacking and that it was just not used during the conduct of the examination. The
witness affirmed to all the defense’s statements that when the items will be
submitted, it will be subjected for weighing by analytical balance so that the court
will determine how much the accused can avail the right to bail or be disqualified
of bail; that when she applied her test, she need to determine the quality of the
substance and that is qualitative. The defense then ended the cross-examination.

REDIRECT EXAMINATION ON P/SUPT PINKY SAYSON ACOG BY

PROSECUTOR AIDA DIGAUM LANGCAMON

The prosecution asked the witness if the sachets subject of those reports
were weighed using the analytical balance to which the latter answered yes and
added that they used digital weighing scale. The prosecution then ended the
redirect examination.