REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES

FOURTH JUDICIAL REGION

REGIONAL TRIAL COURT
BRANCH 8 – BATANGAS CITY

THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, CRIM. CASE NO. 15611

Plaintiff,

-versus- -for-

MARY JANE ROSALES y Armamento, 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”( Sworn Statement of P01 Lito Maranan and P01
Emeliza M. Azucena, respectively)

Comment: These are being objected to for being self serving and unworthy of
credence. These further objected on the ground that they are contrary and inconsistent
with the declarations made by the affiants in open court.

Exhibit “C” (Chemistry Report No. “BD-068-08” 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 “D” (Pre –operation report dated 29 April 2008)

Comment. It is being objected to for being IMMATERIAL and IRRELEVANT as

the prosecution failed to establish its relation to the accused and to the offense charged.

Exhibit “E” (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.

Exhibit “F” (Photocopy of 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 “G” (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. Worthy
to consider also is the statement of the Barangay representative that there is only one item
allegedly taken from the accused thus engenders serious doubts as regards the identity of
the specimen subject matter of the instant case.

Exhibits “H” and “I” ( 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 “J” ( Pictures and its submarkings)

Comment. These are being objected to for being IMMATERIAL and

IRRELEVANT as the prosecution failed to establish its relation to the crime charged.

Exhibit “K” (Request for Laboratory Examination 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.
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, February 12, 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 Provincial Prosecutor

Batangas City