REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES

FOURTH JUDICIAL REGION

REGIONAL TRIAL COURT
BRANCH 8 – BATANGAS CITY

THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, CRIM. CASE NO. 15778

Plaintiff,

-versus- -for-

ALMA DE GUZMAN y Quinao, VIOL. OF ART. II

Accused. SEC.5, OF RA 9165
X ----------------------------------------X

COMMENT/OBJECTION

COME NOW, accused through the undersigned counsel de officio unto this
HONORABLE COURT, most respectfully submits his Comments to the Formal Offer of
Exhibits filed by the Prosecution, to wit:

Exhibits “A” and “B” (Pre –operation report dated September 20, 2008 and
PDEA Special Order with its submarkings)

Comment. These are being objected to for being IMMATERIAL and

IRRELEVANT as the prosecution failed to establish their relation to the accused and to
the offense charged.

Exhibits “C” and “D” ( police and barangay blotters with its submarkings)

Comment. These are being objected to on the ground that these are
IRRELEVANT AND IMMATERIAL as evidence as the prosecution failed to establish
its relation to the crime charged and to the accused himself. Said exhibits also failed to
show the complete picture of the alleged buy bust operation conducted against the person
of the accused. It was also disclosed that the prosecution failed to present the person who
personally recorded the entries in the police blotter and who could identify the alleged
specimen thus chain of custody of the alleged specimen was already broken.

Exhibit “E” (Marked Money with its submarkings)

Comment: This is being objected to for being INCOMPETENT as evidence

because it lacks proper identification in the absence of an ultra – violet powder on the
money allegedly used in the operation. It should be noted that the operatives in these
cases belong to the premier investigative unit of the Philippine National Police.

Exhibit “F” (Certificate of Inventory with its submarkings)

Comment. It is being objected to on the ground that it is INCOMPETENT as

evidence because it was not made or prepared where the accused was allegedly
apprehended which is a clear defiance of the requirements setforth by Republic Act 9165.

Exhibits “G” and “H” ( Arrest Report and Spot Report inclusive of its
submarkings)

Comment: These are being objected to on the ground that these are
INADMISSIBLE as the prosecution failed to present witness who would identify the
same. These are also being objected for being IMMATERIAL and IRRELEVANT
because the prosecution failed to establish its relation to the offense charged. The Rules
on Evidence provide that evidence to be admissible must have such relation to the fact in
issue as to induce belief in its existence or non – existence. ( Rule 128, Section 4, Rules
of Court)

Exhibit “I” and “J” (Request for Laboratory Examination and Drug Test
with its submarkings)

Comment: This is being objected to on the ground that it is INCOMPETENT,

IMMATERIAL AND IRRELEVANT since the subject specimen of the letter request
was not obtained from the accused. Furthermore, it is to be noted that the accused was
charged for Violation of Section 5 of RA 9165 thus violative of the right of the accused
to be informed of the nature and cause of accusation against herself.

Exhibit “K” (Chemistry Report No. “BD-399-08” inclusive of its

submarkings)

Comment: It is being objected not only that it is IRRELEVANT AND

IMMATERIAL but also INADMISSIBLE as the prosecution failed to establish its
relation to the accused since the specimen subject of those reports were not taken from
the accused. The witness who identified the same has no personal knowledge of the
origin of the specimen subject of the above-mentioned reports.

Exhibit “L” ( Sinumpaang Salaysay of P01 Alexander Narvacan Olea)

Comment: It is being objected to for being self serving and unworthy of

credence. It is further objected on the ground that the same is contrary and inconsistent
with the declarations made by the affiant in open court.

Exhibit “M” (specimen and its submarkings)

Comment: This is being objected to on the ground that it is INCOMPETENT,

IMMATERIAL AND IRRELEVANT as the prosecution failed to establish its relation to
the accused. It was not proven beyond reasonable doubt that buy bust operation was
really conducted as the prosecution failed to present the alleged poseur buyer/asset.
Nothing in the prosecution’s evidence provides that there was a strict compliance with
the requirements provided by RA 9165. No photographs were taken during the inventory
and marking of said specimen thus breaking the chain of custody. Desk officer who
personally recorded the entries in the blotter was not presented who could confirm if said
specimen was really presented to him or was really brought at the police station. .

WHEREFORE, it is most respectfully prayed of this Honorable Court that the

foregoing Comment/Objection be duly noted and that all the exhibits offered in evidence
by the prosecution be denied admission.

Other reliefs, just and equitable under the premises are likewise prayed for.

Batangas City, January 5, 2010.

PUBLIC ATTORNEY’S OFFICE

DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE
BATANGAS DISTRICT OFFICE
HALL OF JUSTICE BUILDING
PALLOCAN, BATANGAS CITY
Counsel for the Accused

By:
 NELVIN M. ASI
Public Attorney 2
Roll No. 50530
MCLE Compliance No. II - 0010852

The Branch Clerk of Court

RTC -Branch 8, Batangas City

GREETINGS:

Kindly submit the foregoing Comment/Objection to the Honorable Court

immediately upon receipt hereof.

NELVIN M. ASI

Copy furnished:

Office of the City Prosecutor

Batangas City