Republic of the Philippines

First Judicial Region

REGIONAL TRIAL COURT
Branch 44
San Fernando City, La Union

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES,

Plaintiff,
-versus- CRIM. CASE NO. 11111
For: Violation of Section 5,
HONESTO DIMAGIBA y Wayan, Article I of Republic Act
Accused, No. 9165
x

TRANSCRIPT

of stenographic notes taken during the hearing of the above-entitled case on

the 3rd day of October 2017 before Hon. Presiding Judge ‘Rhodoro V. Juerata
Flores.

APPEARANCES:
Pros. Angel Locsin — Public Prosecutor
Atty. Piolo Pascual — Counsel for the Accused

PRESENT:
Ralph Solano — Court Interpreter/OIC
Jennifer Soriano — Court Stenographer

PROS. LOCSIN:
For the people, Your Honor. May we call to the witness stand Police
Officer Munarfor her cross-examination.

ATTY. IPASCUAL:
For the accused. May we proceed with the cross, Your Honor.

CROSS-EXAMINATION OF PO2.— JULIA MUNAR _ under the same

oath:

ATTY. IPASCUAL:
May we proceed with the cross, Your Honor.

COURT:
Proceed.
 ATTY. PASCUAL:
Q Madam witness, you testified that on June 26, 2016 at around 2:00 in
the afternoon, your CI reported to you personally?
A Yes, sir.
Q Regarding an illegal drug pushing activity of a certain Honesto
IDimagiba?
Yes, sir.
LHS

And at that time when the CI reported to you, you do not know
personally Honesto Dimagiba?
Yes, sir.
APALYF

In fact you do not even know how he looks like?

Yes, sir.
You mentioned in your Affidavit that the name of Honesto Dimagiba?
appears in your Order of Battle, am I correct?
Yes, sir.
AF

But there was no Certification to that effect that you have executed or
your office for that matter executed stating that particular fact?
We did not submit, yes, sir.
DOr

And by the way, this Order of Battle that you were talking about, were
your office responsible in the coming out of informations listed there
in your Order of Battle?
Yes, sir.
>OD >

How can one be listed in that Order of Battle?

Through the informations gathered from the barangay officials,
through the informations given by the BADAC members and through
the informants also.
But it was not through your surveillance, correct?
PA

Yes, sir.
Only the informations given by BADAC or barangay officials?
HNPA

Yes, sir.
So on the basis of that report, your office conducted already an anti-
illegal drug operation against this Honesto Dimagiba, am I correct?
Yes, sir.
Ore

This reporting of your CI to you on June 26, 2016 in the afternoon,

— this was not recorded in the police blotter?
/ Yes, sir.
APSE

Neither did you prepare an incident nor the Sport Report relating to
this reporting of your CI to you?
I did not report it, sir.
OF

You said in your Affidavit, you personally prepared Coordination and

the Pre-Operation Report, am I correct?
Yes, sir.
Or

Coordination, that is coordinated with the?

A The PDEA Regional Office 1, sir.
Q Were you the one who personally submitted this Coordination Report
to PDEA?
A No, sir.
 How did you know then that the operation was coordinated with
A PDEA?
It was relayed to me by the one who delivered and he gave me the
F-

receiving copy of the said report.

How was it relayed to you?
APAPH

The one who delivered is the duty rider of our office.

How did the duty rider relayed that to you, the coordination made?
He gave me the receiving copy, the one received by the office.
But do you agree with me that there was no notation of whether that
receiving copy is a proof or not?
There was a signature of the one who received.
OPAOPrF

But there is no annotation whether it is a proof or not?

Yes.
Do you agree with me also that there is no Certificate of Coordination
that was issued by PDEA?
Yes, sir.
Fr

COURT:
Q What is the implication insofar as your buy bust operation is
concerned if there is no Coordination Form with PDEA, if you know?
A No idea, Your Honor.

ATTY. IPASCUAL:
Q How many comprises your team during this operation against
IDimagiba?
More or less six members, sir.
PAPAS

Did you all proceed to the area of transaction?

We simultaneously proceeded to the area of transaction.
What do you mean by simultaneous?
They proceeded first and we also proceeded by riding a tricycle. We
rode in a different vehicle.
You proceeded at the same time but in a different vehicle?
AD PSN

Yes, sir.
Meaning, that you arrived also at a different point in time at the area
of transaction, is that correct?
Yes, sir.
PAPAS

Who were with you in your travel to the area of transaction?

The confidential informant, sir.
And what vehicle did you use to go to the area of transaction?
Public tricycle.
How about the other members of the team?
PFA PH

They used private vehicles, sir.

How many vehicles were actually used?
There are also motorcycles they used and a private vehicle.
What private vehicle is that?
DPA

Car, sir.
Do you know the name of that car?
 No, sir.
PAS
How many cars?
One, sir.
And how many motorcycles?
APAPA

I can no longer remember.

You were the one who prepared the buy bust money, am I correct?
Yes, sir.
And that buy bust money came from the fund that you maintained
especially for buy bust operation, am I correct?
Yes, sir.
AF

You are a member of the City Anti-Ilegal Drug Special Operations

Task Group (CAIDSTOG) of the City of San Fernando, correct?
Yes, sir.
ANF

So you are very familiar with the PNP Manual of Operations

involving anti-illegal drug operation?
Not all, sir.
DOPrPAPOF

Are you familiar with this fund?

Yes, sir.
And it’s actually there in the Manual, right?
Yes, sir.
Are you also familiar with the provision there that an
Acknowledgment Receipt should be issued whenever money should
be drawn from that fund?
No, sir.
You are not. But do you know whether an Acknowledgement Receipt
>

was issued or you issued since you were the one who withdrew, did
you issue an Acknowledgement Receipt?
No, sir, because I was also the one tasked by the Chief of Police to
-&

hold the funds.

So even at that you were the one tasked, you did not issue an
OrHO

Acknowledgment Receipt of bringing out that money from that fund?

No, but I am only listing it.
You stated in your Affidavit that this buy bust money was handed to
Honesto Dimagibain payment of illegal drug subject matter of this case,
am I correct?
Yes, sir.
NS

So by that, it means that Honesto Dimagiba got hold of the buy bust
money?
Yes, sir.
APF

Where did Honesto Dimagiba place the buy bust money after getting it
from you, if you know?
I did not notice, sir.
OF

You did not have this buy bust money subject to finger print analysis
or examination, is that correct?
No, sir.
rPOP>r

No dusting procedure was ever made on this buy bust money?

No, sir/
NPL Where is again the place of transaction?
At Y Inn Foods, Barangay Parian this City.
When you arrived at that area using the public tricycle, is that a
public tricycle?
Yes, sir.
AYP

When you alighted from the tricycle, was Honesto Dimagiba already
there?
Yes, sir.
SFA PAF

Was already there?

Yes, sir.
HPA

What was he doing?

He is sitting in a concrete pavement.
He does not have any things with him, a bag, something like that?
No, sir.
He was not holding anything with him during the time when you saw
him?
No, sir.
HPF

Do you know where the other members of your team positioned

themselves?
I saw the car across the road.
POF

What car was that?

The one the other members used in proceeding to the area of
transaction.
Only the car? It’s only the car that you saw?
FH

I assumed that the other members are inside the car.

No, what I am asking is; it’s only the car that you saw?
HFA

Yes, sir.
From the time you declared the arrest of Dimagiba, how long a time
did you wait before the arrival of the witnesses?
The first witness which is the barangay official, more or less, 15
PF

minutes.
How many witnesses are there in this operation?
FH

Two witnesses, sir.

Two witnesses. The barangay official and?
HAPAN

The media representative, sir.

And how long a time did you wait for the media representative from
the time of the declaration of arrest?
More or less 25 to 30 minutes.
DY

So that means, another 10 to 15 minutes from the arrival of the

barangay captain, is that correct?
Barangay Kagawad, sir.
OF

During that time that you were waiting, the accused was closely
guarded by the members of your team, am I correct?
Yes, sir.
POr

You and the other members of your team?

Yes, at
 Q And during that time, there is no possibility of movement from the
accused because he was closely guarded by you and the other
members of your team, am I correct?
A Yes, sir.

That would be all, Your Honor.

COURT:
Re-direct.

PROS. LOCSIN:
Yes, Your Honor.
Q You said awhile back madam witness that you are in charged with the
CAIDSOTG fund, correct?
A I was tasked by the Chief of Police to hold the said fund.
Q You were tasked to hold it. And you said that when you took out the
buy bust money the P1,000.00 broken into two (2) P500.00 bills, you
listed down that particular transaction, correct?
Yes, sir.
And where did you list that transaction?
POPOS

On a logbook, ma’am.
And what is the contents of the listing that you made?
I put the two (2) P500.00 and the purpose for which it was going to
be used.
You mean you wrote down the word; two (2) P500 bills?
PO

Two (2) pieces P500 bilis.

COURT:
Q You wrote the purpose for which it was going to be used?
A Yes, Your Honor.

PROS. LOCSIN:
Q And what is the purpose that you wrote for these two (2) P500 bills?
A For the buy bust money for Julius Federico.

That would be all, Your Honor.

ATTY. PASCUAL:
Re-cross, Your Honor.

That a copy or a photocopy or a certified true copy of that logbook

OF £0

was not attached to this records of the case, am I correct?

Yes, sir.
There was no Certification issued by your Office that indeed what you
are saying is actually true, am I correct?
Yes, sir.
>
 That would be all, Your Honor.

PROS. LOCSIN:
We have other witnesses in Court for Honesta Dimagiba but may we
know from the defense if they would be willing to enter into stipulations
considering that the witneses present here are witnesses in the inventory as
well as the back-up arresting officer.

ATTY. PASCUAL:
Yes, we will admit, Your Honor.

COURT:
Go ahead.

PROS. LOCSIN:
For the witnesses of the inventory, will the defense admit the names
and signatures of the witnesses; Kagawad Philip Cafieda and media
representative Raul Supsupen and signatures of the witnesses as appearing in
the Certificate of Inventory, marked as Exhibit “B” on page 44 of the record;

ATTY. PASCUAL:
As to the existence of their names and the signatures, we admit that,
as appearing in the Certificate of Inventory.

PROS. LOCSIN:
That Barangay Kagawad Philip Cafieda and media representative Raul
Supsupen were present during the conduct of the marking.

COURT:
The fact that they really executed the
that’s what it means, due execution insofar
they signed it. The fact that they signed it.
Kagawad Cafieda and and Raul Supsupen.
same by affixing their signatures
as they are concerned because
Are they in Court? Barangay
Where are they?

PROS. LOCSIN:
The Barangay Kagawad only, Your Honor.

ATTY. PASCUAL:
Only as to Barangay Kagawad Philip Cafieda.

COURT:
That Barangay Kagawad Philp Cafieda can identify the signatures of
Raul Supsupen, he signed in his presence. Admitted?

ATTY. PASCUAL:
I think he has no personal knowledge.
COURT:
No, we just ask the witness.
Did you see him sign, Mr. Cafieda?

PHILIP CANEDA:
Yes, Your Honor.

COURT:
He can identify the signature of Raul Supsupen in the Certificate of
Inventory the latter having signed the same in his presence.

PROS. LOCSIN:
That he can identify the accused who was present during the conduct
of inventory.

ATTY. IPASCUAL:
Admitted, Your Honor.

PROS. LOCSIN:
That would be all, Your Honor.

COURT:
Counter-stipulation.

ATTY. PASCUAL:
The witness has no personal knowledge as to how the illegal drug
subject matter of this case came about;

PROS. ‘LOCSIN:
Admitted, Your Honor.

ATTY. PASCUAL:
The witness has no personal knowledge of whether or not the sale
subject matter of this case was actually consummated;

PROS. LOCSIN:
Admitted, Your Honor.

ATTY. PASCUAL:
That when the witness arrived at the area of transaction, what he did
was only to sign the Certificate of Inventory and he did not see the marking
of the illegal drug subject matter of the case;

PROS. ‘LOCSIN:
Not admitted, Your Honor. The witness is saying that the markings
were being done at that time;
ATTY. IPASCUAL:
That the witness cannot identify the confiscated items subject matter
of this case;

COURT:
In what way?

PROS. LOCSIN:
In what manner?

ATTY. PASCUAL:
As stipulated in the Certificate of Inventory because my earlier
stipulation ...

COURT:
Meaning, you are supposed to know the markings.

PROS. LOCSIN:
Admitted. He does not know the marking. He was not the one who
made the markings in the first place.

COURT:
The witness cannot identify the confiscated items by way of their
markings because he was not the one who marked the items.

ATTY. PASCUAL:
As stipulated in the Certificate.
I think that would be all, Your Honor.

COURT:
Would you like to have additional?

PROS. LOCSIN:
Not anymore, Your Honor. Their presence is established.

ATTY. PASCUAL:
May we just ask one question on cross, Your Honor.

COURT:
No need to make the offer the testimony of the witness.

ATTY. PASCUAL:
It was one of my stipulations, Your Honor.

COURT:
I know, that’s why.
 Then you offer him for the purpose of establishing that he was present
during the marking that’s the only subject matter of your cross-examination
so that is going to be the offer of the testimony.

PROS. LOCSIN:
Yes, Your Honor.

ATTY. PASCUAL:
At any rate, Your Honor, the prosecution made the offer of the
testimony before the conduct of the stipulation.
It should not be that the Prosecutor should have made first any offer
before we asked question to the witness.

PROS. LOCSIN:
There would be no need for an offer if the subject is for stipulation.

COURT:
What is stipulated only insofar as the testimony of witnesses are those
that were offered to you for stipulation. And so if these are denied, then, so
be it. Because that was only the subject matter of the stipulation and she
does not intend to present the witness to the witness stand.

ATTY. PASCUAL:
But the prosecution did not offer....

ATTY. PASCUAL:
Our point is that, before the prosecution should have offer for
stipulation, there must be an offer. That is the point of the defense.

COURT:
There is no need to offer the intended testimony of the witness to the
witness stand for purposes of stipulation. The reason why you stipulate is so
that the witness will not need to have to seat in the witness stand and if that
were only the subject of the stipulation and anything else is denied by the
prosecution by your counter stipulation then she should not be compelled to
put the witness to the witness stand for purposes of your satisfaction because
that would be impeaching his/her own witness which is not allowed under
the Rules. Unless the prosecution is willing to have this witness. . .

PROS. LOCSIN:
If they would like to present the witness during the presentation of the
defense then that would be the call of the defense, Your Honor.

COURT:
Because there were already witnesses who established their presence.
PROS. LOCSIN:
Yes, Your Honor. He is the back-up arresting officer. And may we
know if they are willing to enter into stipulation.

COURT:
Also.

PROS. LOCSIN:
Yes, Your Honor, for the back-up.

ATTY. PASCUAL:
Yes, Your Honor.

PROS. LOCSIN:
The witness is PO1 Rendon Orfano.

COURT:
He is in court.

PROS. ‘LOCSIN:
Yes, Your Honor.

COURT:
Alright. Stipulation.

PROS. LOCSIN:
Will the defense admit that the witness PO1 Rendon Orfano is a member
of the Philippine National Police assigned at the City Anti-I[legal Drugs
Special Operations Task Group (CAIDSOTG) of San Fenando City Police
Station City of San Fernando, La Union;

ATTY. PASCUAL:
Admitted, Your Honor.

PROS. LOCSIN:
That he was on duty on June 26, 2016 at San Fernando City Police
Station, San Fernando City, La Union;

ATTY. PASCUAL:
Admitted, Your Honor.

PROS. LOCSIN:
He was present during the conduct of the briefing for a buy-bust
operation against the accused.

ATTY. PASCUAL:
 We do not admit that, Your Honor. We do not have personal
knowledge.

PROS. LOCSIN:
In view of the non admission, Your Honor, then may we just present
the witness. ,

COURT:
That he was designated as a back-up...

PROS. LOCSIN:
Because that was taken during the briefing and his presence during the
briefing was already denied by the defense.

COURT:
That he was the designated or assigned as the back-up of?

PROS. LOCSIN:
Back-up arresting officer of PO2 Julia Munar.

COURT:
Do you admit that he was designated as a back-up?

ATTY. PASCUAL:
Yes, we admit, Your Honor.

PROS. LOCSIN:
That when PO2 Francisca Munar executed the pre-arranged signal, he
assisted in the arrest of the accused.

ATTY. PASCUAL:
Yes, admitted, Your Honor.

PROS. LOCSIN:
He took the photographs during the conduct of the inventory
appearing on page 45 of the record marked as Exhibit “J” for the
prosecution;

ATTY. PASCUAL:
Yes, admitted, Your Honor.

PROS. LOCSIN:
He signed the Joint Affidavit of Arrest which were already marked as
Exhibit “A” for the prosecution the original appears on pages 7 to 8;
ATTY. PASCUAL:
Admitted, Your Honor.

PROS. LOCSIN:
No other proposals for stipulation, Your Honor.

COURT:
Counter-stipulation.

ATTY. PASCUAL:
That he did not actually see the consummation of the sale;

COURT:
Exchange of the object as well as the consideration thereon.

ATTY. PASCUAL:
Yes, Your Honor.

PROS. LOCSIN:
Admitted, Your Honor.

COURT:
That there is no photograph of the evidence.

ATTY. PASCUAL:
Yes, Your Honor.

PROS. LOCSIN:
Admitted, Your Honor.
No additional questions, Your Honor.

COURT:
No additional.
No more witnesses for the prosecution.

PROS. LOCSIN:
We still have the receiving clerk but he was not subpoenad for todays’
presentation but if the defense would be willing to enter stipulation without
the presence of the receiving clerk only.

COURT:
The poseur buyer testified that it was he who delivered that to the duty
desk officer. The Chemist Fenled that she received it from the duty desk
officer. Se

PROS. LOCSIN:
With respect to the Chemist we were not yet...
COURT:
Could you check?

PROS. LOCSIN:
Yes, it was indicated in the stipulation but the defense is willing to
stipulate today.

COURT:
What is the name first?

PROS. LOCSIN:
Police Officer John Baniaga, Your Honor.

That the witness is the receiving clerk of the Regional Crime

Laboratory Regional Office 1 , PNP, City of San Fernando, La Union;

ATTY. PASCUAL:
Admitted, Your Honor.

PROS. LOCSIN:
That on June 26, 2016, Police Officer John Baniaga received a Letter
Request for Laboratory Examination from PO2 Julia Munar as shown
by her signatures in the stamp found in the left bottom portion of the Letter
Request as well as the Chain of Custody Form;

ATTY. PASCUAL:
Admitted, Your Honor.

PROS. LOCSIN:
That along with the Request for Laboratory Examination was the
object submitted for examination as contained in the Request and Chain of
Custody Form;

ATTY. PASCUAL:
Admitted, Your Honor.

PROS. LOCSIN:
That he turned over the Request for Laboratory Examination and the
specimen to Police Sr. Inspector Vice B. Ganda;

COURT: \
That he turned over the same to Police Sr. Inspector Vice B. Ganda;
Baligod;

ATTY. PASCUAL:
Admitted, Your Honor.
PROS. LOCSIN:
That would be all, Your Honor.

COURT:
Counter stipulations.

ATTY. PASCUAL:
Counter-stipulations, Your Honor.

That PO3 John Baniaga has no personal knowledge as to how PO2

Julia Munar got hold of the illegal drug subject matter of this case
turned over to him;

PROS. LOCSIN:
Admitted, Your Honor.

ATTY. PASCUAL:
That PO3 John Baniaga has no personal knowledge on the
examination conducted by the Forensic Chemist PSI Vice B. Ganda; _

PROS. LOCSIN:
Admitted, Your Honor.

ATTY. PASCUAL:
That PO3 John Baniaga has no personal knowledge as to what
happened with the illegal drug subject matter of this case after turning it over
to Police Senior Inspector Vice B. Ganda;

PROS. LOCSIN:
Admitted, Your Honor.

ATTY. PASCUAL:
That PO3 Baniaga did not make any marking on the illegal drug
subject matter of this case which were turned over to him by Police Officer
Munar before turning it over to the Forensic Chemist;

PROS. LOCSIN:
Admitted, Your Honor.

COURT: NT
So terminated?

PROS. LOCSIN:
Yes, Your Honor.
I am ready to make our formal offer, Your Honor.
COURT:
Go ahead.

PROS. LOCSIN:
The prosecution formally offers in evidence the following Exhibit:
Exhibits Exhibit “A”, the Joint Affidavit of Arrest; to prove the existence
and due execution of the document; to prove the conduct of the buy-bust
operation against the accused which led to his arrest and as part of the
testimony of the witness. As Exhibit “B”, the Certification of Inventory
original of which is in the record of this case. To prove that the evidence
seized from the accused were marked and inventoried in accordance with
law and in the presence of two (2) witnesses and as part of the testimony of
the witnesses who testified thereon. Exhibit “C” is the Coordination Form;
Exhibit “D” is the Pre-Operation Form; and Exhibit “E” is the Certificate of
Coordination; the common purpose is to prove the compliance with the
requirements of the law and as part of the testimony of the witnesses who
testified thereon; Exhibit “F” is the Request for Laboratory Examination; to
prove Chain of Custody and that Request was made for laboratory
examination; that the specimen were submitted for laboraory examination
and as part of the testimony of the witnesses. Exhibit “G” is the Initial
Laboratory Report and the Final Chemistry Report as Exhibit “H”. The
common purpose is to prove existence and due execution of the laboratory
report. That the laboratory examination yielded positive results to the
presence of dangerous drugs which was siezed from the accused during the
operation and as part of the testimony of the witnesses who testified thereon.
Exhibit “T’, the two (2) pieces genuine P500 bills used as buy-bust money
with markings; to prove the existence of the buy-bust money which was
used in the operation; to prove that the poseur buyer put markings in the
buy-bust money prior to the conduct of the operation and as part of the
testimony of the witness. Exhibit “J”, pictures taken during the conduct of
the inventory; to prove that the pictures were taken pursuant to the
requirements of the law. As Exhibit “K”, one (1) piece heat-sealed
transparent plastic sachet with markings of the Chemist as well as the poseur
buyer; to prove the existence of the plastic sachet containing dangerous
drugs which is the subject of sale in the buy-bust operation; to prove that the
poseur buyer put markings in the sachets to preserve the identity of the
sachet subject of the buy-bust operation; to prove that the Chemist put
markings on the sachet after she conducted laboratory examination and to
prove the identity of the sachet subject of the buy-bust operation and as part
of the testimony of the witnesses who testified thereto. Exhibit “K-3” is the
envelope where the Chemist put the sachet after her examination. To prove
that the Chemist put the sachet in a plastic container to secure it and to prove
the identity of such specimen. As pane “L”, one (1) unit of Whatsaap
cellular phone with markings made by the poseur buyer; to prove the
existence of the cellular phone confiscated from the accused during his
arrest, and as Exhibit “M”, the Chain of Custody Form; to prove chain of
custody and identification of evidence and as part of the testimony of the
witnesses who testified thereto.
That would be all, Your Honor.

COURT:
The envelope is “K-3” and “K-1” and “K-2” are?

PROS. LOCSIN:
The markings of the poseur buyer, Your Honor.

COURT:
Comment?

ATTY. PASCUAL:
The defense objects to the admission of all evidences formally offered
by the prosecution on the ground that 1. Self-serving, 2. Said evidence does
not prove the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt and said
evidence are not in compliance with RA 9165 particularly Section 5.

COURT:
When called for hearing for further presentation of prosecution
evidence, PQO2 Julia Munar _ returned the witness stand and thereafter her
testimony was terminated. Afterwhich, Public Prosecutor Angel Locsin
and Atty. Piolo Pascual of the Public Attorney’s Office, counsel for the
accused, entered into stipulations and counter stipulations of the testimony
of prosecution witnesses Philip Cafieda, PO1 Rendon Orfano as well as PO3
John Baniaga.

1. The names and signatures of the witnesses as appearing in the

Certificate of Inventory marked as Exhibit “B” on page 44 of the
record;
2. He can identify the signature of Raul Supsupen in the Certificate
of Inventory, the latter having signed the same in his presence;
3. He can identify the accused who was present during the
inventory;
4. The witness has no personal knowledge as to how the illegal
drug subject matter of this case came about;
5. The witness has no personal knowledge on whether or not the
sale subject matter of this was actually consummated;
6. When the witness arrived at the area of transaction what he did
was only to sign the Certificate of Inventory and he did not see
the marking of the illegal drug subject of this case-Not admitted;
7. The witness cannot identify the confiscated items subject matter
of this case;
8. The witness PO1 Orfano is a member of the PNP assigned at the
City Anti-Illegal Drugs Special Operation Task Group
(CATIASOTG) Palice Statinn Citv af San Fernando. T.a Tinion:
 9. He was on duty on June 26, 2016 at San Fernando City Police
Station, San Fernando City, La Union;
10.He was present during the conduct of the briefing for a buy-
bust operation against the accused-Not admitted;
11.He was designated as a back-up;
12.When PO21] Julia Munar executed the pre-arranged signal,
he assisted in the arrest of the accused;
13.He took photographs during he conduct of the inventory
appearing on page 45 of the records marked as Exhibit “J” for
the prosecution;
14.He signed the Joint Affidavit of Arrest which were already
marked as Exhibit “A” for the prosecution the original appears
on pages 7 to 8;
15.He did not actually see the consummation of the sale;
16.There is no photograph of the evidence;
17.The witness is the receiving clerk of the Regional Crime
Laboratory Office 1 at PNP, City of San Fernando, La Union;
18.On June 26, 2016, Police Officer John Baniaga received a
Letter Request for laboratory examination from PO2 Julia
Munar as shown by her signatures in the stamp found in the
left bottom portion of the Letter Request as well as the Chain
of Custody;
19.Along with the Request for Laboratory Examination was the
object submitted for examination as contained in the Request
and Chain of Custody Form;
20.He turned over the Request for Laboratory Examination and
the specimen to Police Senior Inspector Vice B. Ganda;
21. PO3 John Baniaga has no personal knowledge as to how PO2
- Julia Munar got hold of the illegal drug subject matter of
this case turned over to him;
22.PO03 John Baniaga has no personal knowledge on the
examination conducted by the Forensic Chemist, PSI
Vice B. Ganda;
23.P03 John Baniaga has no personal knowledge as to what
happened with the illegal drug subject matter of this case after
turning it over to Police Senior Inspector Vice B. Ganda;

PO3 Baniaga did not make any marking on the illegal drug subject
matter of this case which were turned over to him by Police Officer
Julia Munar _ before turning it over to the Forensic Chemist
Thereafter, the prosecution formally offered Exhibits “A” to “M”
and submarkings to which comments were made by Atty. Pascual.

All Exhibits of the prosecution are admitted to form part of the

record of this case subject to their evidentiary worth.
 Meantime, reset the case for the initial presentation of defense
evidence on October 24, 2017 and November 7, 2017 both at 8:30 in the
morning and 2:00 in the afternoon.

Prosecutor Angel Locsin and Atty. Piolo Pascual as well as the

accused Honesto Dimagiba, are notified of this Order in open court.

SO ORDERED.

I hereby certify to the correctness of the foregoing.

\
JENNIFER G. SORIANO

Court Stenographer III