REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES

REGIONAL TRIAL COURT

FOURTH JUDICIAL REGION
BRANCH 7-BATANGAS CITY

THE PEOPLE
OF THE PHILIPPINES,
Plaintiff,

- versus - CRIM. CASE NO. 10903

EDGARDO BAUTISTA Violation of Sec. 15,

Y ARMAMENTO, Art. III, R.A. 6425, etc

Accused.
x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x

MEMORANDUM FOR THE ACCUSED

COMES NOW accused, thru undersigned counsel de oficio, unto this Honorable
Court, by way of Memorandum, most respectfully states:

THE CASE

Accused Edgardo Bautista was charged before this Honorable Court for violation
of Sec. 15, Art. III of R.A. 6425, as amended, allegedly committed as follows:

“That on or about May 11, 2000 at around 4:15 o’ clock in the

afternoon at Brgy. Sta. Clara, Batangas City, Philippines and within the
jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the above-named accused, not being
authorized by law, did then and there willfully, unlawfully and feloniously
sell, dispense, deliver, transport or distribute more or less 0.04 gram(s) of
Shabu, with generic name ‘Methamphetamine Hydrochloride’, a
regulated drug, which is clear violation of the above-cited law.

CONTRARY TO LAW.”

When arraigned, accused pleaded not guilty. Thereafter, pre-trial and trial
ensued.

EVIDENCE FOR THE PROSECUTION

The prosecution presented the testimony of witnesses SPO4 Nanciano Closa,

SPO1 Danilo Mercado and PO1 Roberto Godoy. The proposed testimonies of SPO3
Conrado Vergara, SPO4 Wilbert Macasaet, P/SR.INSP. Lorna Tria and SPO3 Mario
Panaligan were subject to stipulations.

In his direct testimony, SPO4 Closa testified that on May 11, 2000 at around 4:00
o’ clock in the afternoon, while he was at the police station, he and others, SPO3 Delfin
Alea, Chief Investigating Officer Marcos Barte, Wilbert Macasaet, SPO3 Conrado
Vergara, SPO3 Petronilo Buenafe and PO1 Roberto Godoy went to Brgy. Sta. Clara,
because an asset of Godoy informed the latter that someone was selling shabu in said
place. At Sta. Clara, Godoy’s asset met them and Godoy gave money to the asset. Godoy
further instructed the asset as to what he (asset) would do and after ten (10) minutes,
Godoy told them that the asset gave a signal. They then approached the accused while
while Godoy approached his asset and then, Godoy arrested the accused afterwhich
accused was brought to the police station. When they arrived at the police station, the
money and the sachet of shabu was already with Godoy. Closa further testified that on
May 11, 2000, he did not know accused.

On cross-examination, Closa stated that he did not know the asset of Godoy and
that he has no participation in the buy-bust operation, but Godoy only persuaded him to
accompany him. He also testified that it was Godoy who informed him that an exchange
happened between the asset and the accused. Closa did not know the serial number of the
money used in the alleged buy-bust nor if Godoy made markings on it. He likewise stated
that it was Godoy who gave the money to the asset.

Prosecution witness SPO1 Danilo Mercado testified that on May 11, 2002 at 4:15
in the afternoon, while on duty at the police station, he, together with Barte, Closa,
Macasaet, Vergara, Buenafe, and Godoy, went to Brgy. Sta. Clara to conduct a buy-bust
operation. According to him, they were able to arrest a person selling shabu which was
the accused. After accused’s arrest, he was brought to the police station. On cross
examination, Mercado stated that among all police officers, he was the one who arrested
the accused. He likewise stated that he knows SPO4 Cesar Bagui Geron, of the Warrant
Section also of the Batangas City Police Station and that Police Officer Geron was
included in the team who arrested the accused.

In his direct examination, PO1 Roberto Godoy stated that on May 11, 2002, in the
afternoon, when he was at the Batangas City Police Station on duty, an asset called by
telephone and informed him that someone was selling shabu in Sta. Clara. He then
informed their Chief (Barte) of the Intelligence Section and formed a buy-bust team.
They then entered into the police blotter a P100 peso bill to be used in the buy-bust
operation and proceeded to Brgy. Sta. Clara with six (6) companions: Barte, Alea,
Macasaet, Vergara, Buenafe, and Mercado. Upon arriving at said place, their asset met
them and they gave the P100 peso bill to the asset. They hid themselves and a person
approached the asset, talked, and an exchange happened. Asset then made a pre-arranged
signal. They then apprehended accused and took from the asset the shabu and the P100
peso bill from the accused. Godoy asked the name of the accused (Bautista) and informed
him of his constitutional rights and then brought him to the police station. The shabu was
then turned over to the Investigation Section.

On cross-examination, he stated that due to the information he received on May

11, 2000 at around 4:15 in the afternoon, they formed a buy-bust operation against
accused which turned out positive for which they filed a criminal case against accused for
selling shabu. He likewise denied knowledge of a previous criminal case against accused
for selling also due to buy-bust operation which happened on January 26, 2000 which
was pending (then) before the Honorable Court as Criminal Case No. 10719. He likewise
claimed that he was not aware that on 4:00 o’clock in the afternoon of the same day,
accused was already arrested by virtue of a warrant of arrest issued by this Honorable
Court.

The prosecution then offered the following as evidence: (1) “A” – Sworn
Statement of Officer Godoy; (2) “B” – Arrest Report; (3) “C” – Letter-Request for
laboratory examination; (4) “D” – Carbon Copy of Chemistry Report No. D-1621-08;
(5) “E” – small plastic sachet with marking “RAG 5/11/00”; (6) “F” – photocopy of
P100 bill with marking “RAG”

THE EVIDENCE FOR THE DEFENSE

 In his direct examination, accused EDGARDO BAUTISTA, testifying for
himself, stated that he was a resident of Sta. Clara before being arrested and that on May
11, 2000 at around 4:00 o’ clock in the afternoon, he was in their house at Sta. Clara with
his wife and their three (3) children. Two (2) owner-type jeepneys arrived ridden by
approximately six (6) policemen of whom he only knew Alea and Godoy who then and
informed him that they had warrant of arrest for a case on January 28, 2000. Abdon
pointed a gun at him and tried to force him to ride a tricycle but he ran away. Godoy shot
at him but missed and he eventually was brought to the police station where they arrived
at around 4:30 o’ clock in the afternoon. He was detained in the police station for two (2)
days and then was brought the Batangas City Jail in Barangay Sico where he stayed for
eight (8) months.

On cross-examination, he testified that the arrest of the accused by the six

policemen was because of a warrant of arrest for him. He knew Alea because Alea and
Godoy used to go around Sta. Clara and that he had no quarrel with the two. The warrant
of arrest was for an incident which allegedly happened on January 28, 2000; that he did
not know Closa, Macasaet but only Alea and Godoy; that he also knew Godoy because
his (Godoy’s) owner-type jeep was pointed to him by friends; that he had no occasion to
talk to Godoy.

DISCUSSION

There was No Buy-Bust Operation conducted against the Accused on May 11,
2000

If there was anything that the testimonies of the

prosecution witnesses suggested, it was to strengthen the defense’s position that no buy-
bust operation was conducted against the accused on May 11, 2000. During the course of
the proceedings, the Honorable Court heard the testimonies of the prosecution witness
Closa, Mercado and Godoy, all allegedly arresting officers and part of the buy-bust team
against the accused. Yet, even the most cursory evaluation of their respective testimonies
would result in entertaining mere questions rather than establish facts.

Closa’s testimony was characterized by its briefness and vagueness. His

testimony as to the conduct of the buy-bust operation was couched in the most general of
terms. Noticeably absent from his testimony are the details of the conduct of the buy-bust
which would have given it credibility and believability. But curiously, despite his claim
that he was one of the members of the buy-bust team, he was never asked to identify the
plastic sachet of shabu allegedly taken from accused nor the marked money used by their
asset. In fact, nowhere in his testimony did he ever mention that a P100 peso bill was
blottered and marked prior to the buy-bust nor did he have any idea if the plastic sachet
of shabu allegedly confiscated contained any identifying marks. Said ignorance is
remarkable to say the least, since by his own admission, he was a member of the buy-bust
team.

His statements on cross-examination further highlight his ignorance or lack of

awareness on the buy-bust operation (if there really was one conducted), to wit:

“ATTY. ACLAN:

Q: With regard to the alleged buy-bust operation, you have no

participation because it was only Godoy who persuaded you to accompany
him?
 A: Yes, sir.

Q: You do not know the asset of Godoy?

A: Yes, sir.

xxx xxx xxx

Q: And when the alleged buy-bust operation was consummated,

it was Godoy that informed you that there was exchange of goods?

A: Yes, sir.

Q: That is the only knowledge you have?

A: Yes, sir.”

(TSN, 3/13/01, p. 8)

To further emphasize this perplexing ignorance, Closa testified that:

“PROS. S. DE CASTRO:

Q: After instruction had been given by Godoy to his asset, did

you and your companions had positioned yourself at a certain
place where you and your companions would not be seen, what
happened next?

A: Not long after 10 minutes have passed, PO1 Godoy told us that his
asset had made a signal, ‘sinabi ni Godoy na sumenyas na yung
aming asset’.”

(TSN, 3/13/01, p. 5)

What is highly unbelievable in this allegation is Closa’s account that it was

Godoy only who saw the exchange and they were only informed of said exchange by
Godoy, which leads the defense to wonder if all police officers other than Godoy were
stricken blind at the exact time the exchange happened and that they had to take Godoy’s
word that an exchange did happen. It is only logical to assume that said police officers
must be focusing their whole attention on the asset and accused. Yet, this witness would
like the Honorable Court to believe that they all missed the exchange and it was Godoy
alone who saw it.

Clearly, the only logical explanation in this situation is that no actual buy-bust
operation was conducted.

If Closa’s testimony was vague and abbreviated, PO1 Mercado’s testimony was
more so. Claiming that he was also a part of the buy-bust operation, Mercado’s direct
testimony was limited to saying that they were able to arrest the accused and then
identifying him in open court. He never provided nor did the Public Prosecutor attempt to
extract from him any details of the buy-bust. (TSN, 9/11/01, pp. 4-5) That his testimony
was conspicuous for its lack of substance is an understatement. No marked money, no
description of the conduct of the buy-bust or an exchange took place, no asset mentioned,
no testimony that anything was confiscated from the accused are just some of the
essential details which Mercado failed to mention. Like Closa, the Prosecutor did not
attempt to make Mercado identify any money or sachet of shabu. This omission becomes
doubly suspicious since what is only reflected in Mercado’s testimony is the fact of the
arrest of the accused. This reinforces the defense’s position that Bautista, while arrested
on May 11, 2000, was never the subject of a buy-bust operation. It is interesting to note
that neither of the two police officers abovementioned nor the other police officers whose
testimonies were subject to stipulations (SPO3 Conrado Vergara and SPO4 Wilbert
Macasaet) allegedly all members of the buy-bust team ever executed a sworn statement in
support of their claims.

Prosecution witness Godoy’s testimony, while detailed in comparison to the two

other police officers testimonies, was heard almost THREE YEARS after the termination
of the testimonies of his alleged companions. Closa’s testimony was heard by this
Honorable Court on March 13, 2001, while Mercado’s testimony wound up on Sept. 11,
2001. In comparison, Godoy testified only on March 31, 2004, or after a ridiculously long
period of time has elapsed - time enough for him to look over the testimonies of his co-
police officers and make the needed improvements in his own testimony.

So, only after almost four years from the incident and after the testimony of all the
other prosecution witnesses, we hear for the first time that a P100 peso bill was blottered
and marked so as to be used for a buy-bust operation. For the first time also, we heard of
a pre-arranged signal between the asset and the police officers. For the first time, we are
also allowed to see the plastic sachet of shabu allegedly sold by the accused which we
also heard for the first time, to be marked by the witness’ initials. To this we say, too late
the hero. The extremely belated appearance of this prosecution witness can no longer
cure the hovering doubt created by virtue of the testimonies of the previous prosecution
witnesses. One cannot help but entertain the feeling that Godoy’s testimony was made
precisely to “remedy” the defects of the testimonies of the former prosecution witnesses.

What makes matters worse is the fact that the P100 peso bill allegedly used in the
buy-bust operation was never presented nor identified by this witness. Rather what was
presented was a photocopy of a 100 peso bill. (TSN, 3/31/04, pp. 8-9) And despite the
fact that the defense requested that the original be produced, the prosecution never did,
instead, formally offered said photocopy before the Honorable Court, without ever
producing the original.

The High Court deplored that buy-bust operation does not always commend itself
as the most reliable way to go after violators of the Dangerous Drugs Act. To be
credible, proof of a legitimate buy-bust operation should be clear, convincing and
satisfactory (People vs. Ambida, 226 SCRA 84). This the prosecution failed to do.

Judges had been cautioned to receive cum grano salis (with grain of salt) the
testimony of police officers who participated in the solution of criminal cases. It has been
suggested that judges should be on guard against the natural tendency of police officers to
color facts because of prepossessions especially in cases where they have themselves
arrested the accused (Francisco, Evidence, Part II, p. 637, 1973 Ed.)

Moreover, the message has been imparted to judges that the testimony of a police
officer should be criticized more carefully than that given by a wholly disinterested
witness because of the natural and unavoidable tendency and bias of the mind of such
officer to construe everything against the accused and disregard everything that does not
tend to support his preconceived opinion (Id. At footnote 351).

It is Impossible for Accused to be Subject of the Buy-Bust Operation since he

was Already Previously Arrested and Detained
 It is impossible for accused to have committed the crime being imputed against
him by the prosecution since he had already been arrested and detained by the police
officers of the same police station on the same date and in the same place a mere fifteen
(15) minutes earlier.

As per testimony of the accused, he was arrested at Brgy. Sta. Clara by six
policemen of the Batangas City Police Station, including Godoy himself, at 4:00 o’ clock
in the afternoon on May 11, 2000 by virtue of a warrant of arrest in another case against
him then pending before the Honorable Court.

Said warrant of arrest is the same warrant of arrest issued by this Honorable Court
against the same accused in Criminal Case No. 10769 (see Exhibits “1” and “2”).
Bautista would claim that after his arrest, he was continuously detained, therefore,
making it impossible for a buy-bust operation to be conducted on him fifteen minutes
later, to wit:

“ATTY. BRUAL:

Q: What time was it when you arrived at the police

station?

A: Around 4:30 in the afternoon.

Q: When you arrived at the police station, what happened

there?

A: They already put me behind bars.

Q: How long were you detained there?

A: About two (2) days, then they brought me to Sico.

Q: How long were you detained at Sico jail?

A: About eight (8) months, ma’am.”

(TSN, 4/11/05, p. 5)

These claims by the accused were amply supported by documentary exhibits

executed by a member of the Batangas City Police Station itself. Exhibit “3” by the
defense is an Indorsement of Warrant of Arrest dated May 12, 2000 executed by SPO4
Cesar Geron, Chief, Subpoena and Warrant Section of the Batangas City Police Station,
which clearly reflects the fact of the arrest of the accused, viz:

“Accused was arrested by members of Warrant sec led by

undersigned on or about 4:00 pm, May 11, 2000 at Brgy. Sta.
Clara, Batangas City, subsequently turned over to Batangas City
Jail for proper disposition.”

It must be noted that never did it appear from said indorsement that accused was
arrested for any reason other than the warrant issued by this Honorable Court. Nor does it
appear that accused was ever granted temporary liberty after his arrest on May 11, 2000
at 4:00 in the afternoon. As such, it reinforces accused’s claim that he was continuously
detained after his arrest. Thus, this relegates the 4:15 p.m. buy-bust operation by the
police officers on accused a figment of their collective imagination.

It is likewise telling that in the statements of Mercado, he admits on cross-

examination that SPO4 Geron was a member of their arresting team, to wit:

“ATTY ACLAN:

Q: This SPO4 Geron who is a member of the

warrant section, is he included in the
members of the arresting team?

A: Yes, sir.”

(TSN, 9/11/01, p.6)

It is not hard to imagine the truth being that accused was legitimately arrested by
virtue of a warrant of arrest on May 11, 2000 at 4:00 pm in Brgy. Sta. Clara, Batangas
City. However, for reasons which would remain known only to said police officers, they
would try to impute against accused another crime, one which he never committed, in an
attempt to subvert the ends of justice for their own personal motives. This, the Honorable
Court has the power to thwart.

PRAYER

WHEREFORE, for failure of the prosecution to prove his guilt beyond reasonable
doubt accused prays for his acquittal.

Such other reliefs, equitable under the premises, are likewise being prayed.

Batangas City, May 16, 2006.

PUBLIC ATTORNEY’S OFFICE

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

By:

GILBERT A. EBORA
Public Attorney II
The Branch Clerk of Court
Regional Trial Court
Branch 7-Batangas City

GREETINGS:

Please submit the foregoing Memorandum to the Honorable Court immediately

upon receipt hereof.

GILBERT A. EBORA