Republic of the Philippines

Department of Justice
National Prosecution Service
OFFICE OF THE PROVINCIAL PROSECUTOR
OF LANAO DEL SUR

PSI ROMER G. ENRIQUES, etal,

Complainant,
NPS-RXIV-04-INQ-18B-00036
-versus- FOR: Violation of Section 11,
Art. 2 of R. A. 9165

NPS-RXIV-04-INQ-18B-00037
FOR: Violation of Section 5,
Art. 2 of R. A. 9165

IBRAHIM SABDULLAH DATU-IMAM

aka RANDY,
Respondent.
x----------------------------------------x

COUNTER-AFFIDAVIT

I, IBRAHIM SABDULLAH DATU-IMAM, of legal age, orphan,

single and a resident of Binidayan, Lanao del Sur, after being duly sworn to
an oath in accordance with law, do hereby depose and state that:

1. I am the same respondent in the above-captioned cases pending

before the Honorable Provincial Prosecutor’s Office of Lanao del Sur;

2. At the outset, I am vehemently denying the allegations of the

complaining arresting officers for being fabricated, false and mere
bare allegations. The truth is as stated hereunder:
i. The alleged buy-bust operation leading to my unlawful
arrest was only a frame-up executed at the initiative of
Mr. and Mrs. Radia, also residents of Binidayan, Lanao del
Sur;
ii. In the year 2016, I worked as a personal escort of said
spouses who work in Cotabato City;
iii. Although initially employed as a personal escort, the couple
even required me to perform household chores at times;

Page 1 of 7
 iv. To help my siblings sustain our family needs, I tried my level
best to be of good service to them despite their unbecoming
treatment to me;
v. However, after almost five months from my employment
with them, I, with the advice of my siblings, decided to
severe such service and instead worked on my papers to
work abroad;
vi. Early January 2018, I came to the rescue of relatives who
had heavy discord with the kins of Mr. and Mrs. Radia in
Binidayan, Lanao del Sur who are their rival in the previous
local elections;
vii. Five days after such heated disagreement, Mrs. Radia on
her way came to our place and slapped me several times
while reprimanding me at the top of her voice: “Ino ka
pagogop sa mga taw anan? Da a tadm iyan ah!” (why do
you come to the rescue of those persons? You really are
ungrateful!);
viii. More than ten days after the slapping incident, Mrs. Radia
came to our house and asked forgiveness for her immoral
act and asked me to serve them again and accompany
them to Cotabato City;
ix. Despite the staunch refusal of my elder siblings, owing to
our financial difficulties, I accepted the offer;
x. On February 21, 2018, I escorted the spouses to Cotabato
City and on the next day, they told me we are going back
home;
xi. While in Picong, they told me they will drop me in
Malabang, Lanao del Sur as they have contacted a
passenger vehicle going to Binidayan for me to get
important documents in their house and gave me two
thousand pesos;
xii. When we reached Malabang, a passenger vehicle was
indeed waiting for me and among the passengers was a
Barangay Chairman in Binidayan;
xiii. Thereafter, the spouses headed to Lanao del Sur;
xiv. To my surprise, when we reached Binidayan, Lanao del Sur
at around 9: 00 o’clock in the evening, Police officers
accosted our vehicle and forcibly grabbed me out of it and
made me drop facing the ground while handcuffing my
hands;
Page 2 of 7
 xv. The police officers feignedly searched my body but found
nothing.
xvi. However, upon taking photographs, they took out the Green
Cross alcohol container allegedly containing sachets of
shabu and claimed having recovered it from me.

3. No buy-bust operation was actually conducted against accused. In

support of this truthful fact is as follows;

i. Upon interrogation during the Inquest Proceedings, finding

that no Affidavit of Poseur-Buyer was presented to the
Honorable Office, Chief of Police PSI Romer G. Enriquez
confirmed before Prosecutor Rayhanah Abubacar-Ditual
and assisting PAO lawyers Atty. Fatimah Mohammadali and
Atty. Mahida Salih that the supposed Poseur-Buyer is a
Civilian Asset whose identity they opt not to divulge in
order not to compromise their future buy-bust operations;
ii. We are however surprised when we procured a copy of
the Affidavit of Poseur-Buyer presented to the OPP-Lanao
del Sur seeing that the alleged poseur-buyer was PO2
Menor B. Maamor, openly inconsistent with PSI
Enriquez testimony that the poseur-buyer was a Civilian
Asset;
iii. It needs to be emphasized that the Affidavit of Poseur-
Buyer was belatedly produced despite the opportunity
they had to execute and present one to the Prosecutor’s
Office before the Inquest Proceedings on February 24,
2018;
iv. One cannot find a reasonable excuse why in the Judicial
Affidavit Complaint executed by PSI Enriquez, the name of
the poseur-buyer was not specified, if indeed the alleged
buy-bust operation took place.

4. In the Affidavit of Poseur-Buyer, PO2 Menor B. Maamor states in the

7th paragraph thereof that accused gave him a one heat sealed
transparent sachet believed to be shabu after handing the buy-
bust money to accused;

5. PO2 Maamor continues in the 9 th paragraph of his Affidavit that PO1

Datumanot M. Sendad received the aforesaid seized item from

Page 3 of 7
 the former and not from the accused himself, thus openly
rebutting the authenticity of the entry in the Chain of Custody
Form which shows PO1 Datumanot M. Sendad as the seizing
officer of the particular item;

6. Under the 2014 Revised PNP Manual on Anti-Illegal Drugs

Operations and Investigation, in every negation operation, a “Seizing
Officer” shall be designated who would be responsible for the
inventory and initial custody of all drug and non-drug evidence
confiscated during the anti-illegal drugs operations;

7. Thus, for the successful prosecution of the crime of illegal sale of

drugs, there must be a Chain of Custody Form where the name of
PO2 Menor B. Maamor appear as the seizing officer because, as per
his Affidavit, he had the initial custody of the alleged one sachet of
drug from the accused. Non-compliance herewith, as it is in this case,
places doubt to the integrity and evidentiary value of such piece of
evidence;

8. Further, both the Judicial Affidavit Complaint, Affidavit of

Poseur-Buyer and Accomplishment Report dated February 22,
2018 are replete of any showing that the pieces of evidence
allegedly recovered from accused were marked nor was there
any mention of any instance that marking was made by anyone
of the police officers. Hence, again, doubt is injected as to their
integrity and evidentiary value. These documents submitted to this
Honorable Office do not give a clear picture of what really transpired
and therefore could not serve as bases to indict accused of the
crimes he is accused of;

9. Corrolarily, the Certificate of Inventory of the alleged seized items do

not bear markings as required under the Revised PNP Manual;

10. In the 6th paragraph of the Judicial Affidavit Complaint executed

by PSI Enriquez, he stated that he acted as the Team Leader of the
Buy-Bust Operation against accused. There is however no indication
therein of the supposed briefing, as required by the Revised PNP
Manual and the Memorandum (Accomplishment Report re Buy-Bust
Operation against Accused) dated February 22, 2018 implies that the
buy-bust operation was conducted in coordination with PDEA ARMM,
Page 4 of 7
 however, no Coordination Report was presented to support such
allegation;

11. The Supreme Court has repeatedly pointed out in a long line of
cases that the purpose of a preliminary investigation or a previous
inquiry of some kind, before an accused is placed on trial, is to
secure the innocent against hasty, malicious and oppressive
prosecution and to protect him from an open and public accusation of
a crime, from the trouble, expenses and anxiety of a public trial
(Rodis vs. Sandiganbayan, 166 SCRA 6198 (1988), People vs.
Poculan, 165 SCRA 155 [1998], Dutere vs. Sandiganbayan, 289
SCRA 721 [1998]. It is also intended to protect the State from having
to conduct useless and expensive trials (Tandioc vs. Resultan, 175
SCRA 37 [1989].

12. These cases abound with procedural lapses that should be

resolved in favor of the accused; a layman who should not be
deprived of liberty or be placed in the pain of incarceration at the
hands of unscrupulous law enforcers who despite knowledge of
the mandated procedures set by law deliberately disregard them
at the cost of other’s life;

13. The Supreme Court has reiterated in Tambasen v. People, 246

SCRA 184(1995) that it is imperative that the presumption, juris
tantum, of regularity in the performance of official duty by law
enforcements agents be applied with studied restraint. This
presumption should not by itself prevail over the presumption of
innocence and the constitutionally-protected rights of the individual.

14. It is the duty of the reviewing Honorable Prosecutor’s Office to

preserve the purity of their own temple from the prostitution of the
criminal law through lawless enforcement. It should not allow itself to
be used as an instrument of abuse and injustice lest an innocent
person be made to suffer the unusually severe penalties for drug
offenses.

15. It should be realized that when a man is hailed to court on a

criminal charge, it brings in its wake problems not only for the
accused but for his family as well. Thus, we are earnestly imploring
Page 5 of 7
 this Honorable Office to weigh the evidence carefully and to
deliberate thereon to determine the existence of a prima facie
case before filing the information in court;

16. Time and again, the Supreme Court has taken judicial notice of
this ugly reality in a number of cases where we observed that it is a
common modus operandi of corrupt law enforcers to prey on the
weak and hapless persons, particularly unsuspecting provincial hicks.
The use of shady underworld characters as informants, the relative
ease with which illegal drugs may be planted in the hands or property
of trusting and ignorant persons, and the imposed secrecy that
inevitably shrouds all drug deals have compelled this Court to be
extra-vigilant in deciding drug cases. Criminal activity is such that
stealth and strategy, although necessary weapons in the arsenal of
police officer, become as objectionable police methods as the
coerced confession and the unlawful search (People v. Simon, 234
SCRA 555, 563 [1994], People v Cruz, 231 SCRA 759,764 [1994],
People v. Crisostomo, 222 SCRA 511, 514 [1993], People v. Ale, 145
SCRA 50, 58-59 [1986]).

17. The objective test in buy-bust operations demands that the

details of the purported transaction must be clearly and adequately
shown. This 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 (People v. Tadepa, 244
SCRA 339, 341-342 [1995], People v. Crisostomo, 222 SCRA 511,
515 [1993]). These critical stages are vital in the prosecution of illegal
sale of drugs which requires strict scrutiny to insure that law-abiding
citizens are not trapped into the odious prey of law enforcers;

18. Among the issues that also needs to be resolved: is whether or

not the arrest on my person lawful? Definitely, the arrest is unlawful
because it does not fall under any of the exceptional three instances
where arrest may be made without a warrant as provided under
Section 5, Rule 113 of 1985 Rules on Criminal Procedure. I was not
arrested in flagrante delicto; neither was I arrested on a hot pursuit
operation, nor am I an escapee from prison. Hence, the inescapable
conclusion is, since the warrantless arrest is unlawful, ipso jure, the
warrantless search incidental to the unlawful arrest is likewise
Page 6 of 7
 unlawful. The subsequent search and seizure made by the arresting
officers were not made pursuant to a lawful arrest;

19. It is as clear as broad daylight that accused was not engaged nor
does he appear to be doing an illegal act when police officers
grabbed him out of the vehicle he was then boarding, thus making his
arrest unlawful;

20. Therefore, the warrantless arrest of accused and the search of

his person are altogether illegal. No less than the Constitution
proscribes search and seizure without judicial warrant and any
evidence obtained without such warrant is rendered inadmissible for
any purpose in any proceeding;

21. I am executing this counter-affidavit to attest to the truthfulness of

the foregoing statements to refute the allegations contained in the
Judicial Affidavit Complaint of PSI Romer G. Enriquez and those
contained in the Affidavit of the Poseur-Buyer and for the DISMISSAL
of the cases filed against me for lack of probable cause.

IN WITNESS HEREOF, I have hereunto affixed my signature this

_____day of _______________________ in Marawi City, Philippines.

IBRAHIM SABDULLAH DATU-IMAM

Affiant

Assisted by:

Atty. Mahida P. Salih

SUBSRIBED AND SWORN to before me this _____day of

_______________________ in Marawi City, Philippines.

Page 7 of 7