Republic of the Philippines

National Capital Judicial Region

REGIONAL TRIAL COURT
Branch 282, Valenzuela City

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES

-versus- Criminal Case Nos. 1137-V-22 to

1138-V-22
MARDE TATUNAY y CARILLA, REXAN For: Violation of Sections 11 and
CARIDAD y BALITIN, MARVIN GARCIA 12, Article II of R.A. 9165
y SAMONTE and RONALD DE VERA y
CADIZ,
Accused.
x------------------------x

COMMENT ON THE PROSECUTION’S

FORMAL OFFER OF EVIDENCE

The above-named accused, represented by the Public Attorney’s

Office, unto this Honorable Court, most respectfully submit this comment
to the Formal Offer of Exhibits of the prosecution and aver as follows:

Exhibit Comment
A self-serving and biased
B
C self-serving and biased; not signed
by the accused; no proof that a copy
thereof was given to the accused,
media representative, DOJ
representative and elected public
official after the inventory; no proof
that accused refused to receive a
copy of the inventory receipt; no
proof that the contents of the
inventory receipt were adequately
explained to the accused before they
were allegedly told to affix their
signature therein
D admitted only as to existence but
D-1 objected for the purposes for which
E they were offered
E-1
F
F-1
G
G-1

1|Page
H to H-3 should not be given probative value
as there is no proof that the accused
underwent diagnostic examination or
were actually checked up by a
physician in order to determine their
health condition
I admitted only as to existence but
J objected for the purposes for which
K they were offered
L
M self-serving and biased; not signed
by the evidence custodian to whom
the forensic chemist turned over the
drug specimens; name of the
evidence custodian, as well as date
and time of his receipt of the drug
specimens from the forensic chemist
are also not included; not signed by
the person who turned over the
specimens to the court; date and
time and person who turned over the
drug specimens to the court are not
specified therein
N and N-1 not properly authenticated by the
O to O-8 person who took the photographs;
date and time when and place where
the photographs were taken are not
visible therein; not all the police
officers who were part of the
operation are visible in the
photographs which raises suspicion if
the other police officers, who were
not present in the photographs but
were mentioned in the affidavit of
arrest, went to the place of arrest for
the operation; act of the police
officers in supposedly marking the
evidence is not apparent from the
photographs; nature of the
document supposedly signed by the
barangay kagawad and the media
representative is also not apparent
from the photograph
P to P-3 not properly authenticated by the
Q and Q-1 person who took the photographs;
date and time when and place where
the photographs were taken are not
visible therein; self-serving and
biased; the photographs by

2|Page
 themselves do not prove that the
evidence was not marked until after
the arrival of the insulating witnesses
at the place of arrest
R and R-1 not properly authenticated by the
person who took the photographs;
date and time when and place where
the photographs were taken are not
visible therein; self-serving and
biased; the photographs by
themselves do not prove that the
drug evidence was placed in an
evidence bag in the presence of the
insulating witnesses after the
conduct of the inventory since it is
possible that the police officers have
marked the evidence and the
evidence bag before the insulating
witnesses arrived at the place of
arrest and the photographs were
taken only to create a semblance of
compliance with the strictures of
Section 21, Article II of R.A. 9165
and its implementing rules and
regulations
S and S-1 when and place where taken are not
visible therein; affidavit or testimony
of any of the security guard on duty
at the Bulwagan ng Katarungan of
MTC Valenzuela City or of any staff
at the Office of the City Prosecutor of
Valenzuela City who was present and
has personal knowledge regarding
the supposed coordination was not
presented; no certified true copy of
the logbook was submitted by the
prosecution; prosecution failed to lay
the predicate for the admission of
secondary or substitutionary
evidence in lieu of the original and,
hence, the photograph thereof
should not be admitted in evidence
for being violative of the original
document rule
T fruits of a poisonous tree
T-1
T-2
T-3
U

3|Page
U-1
V Police blotters are merely prima facie
evidence of the facts stated therein
but they are not conclusive. (People
v. Silva, G.R. No. 131591, 29
December 1999)
W admitted only as to existence but
X objected for the purposes for which
X-1 they were offered
Y admitted only as to existence but
objected for the purposes for which
they were offered; nature of the
document held by the insulating
witnesses is not apparent from the
photograph; photograph does not
prove that the insulating witnesses
truly saw the conduct of marking and
inventory of the evidence since it is
possible that at the time they arrived
at the place of arrest the evidence
was already marked and they were
just asked to sign the inventory form

PRAYER
WHEREFORE, premises considered, it is most respectfully prayed
that this comment be noted by the Honorable Court.

Other reliefs, just and equitable, are likewise prayed for.

Metro Manila, Valenzuela City, Metro Manila, 26 October 2022.

PUBLIC ATTORNEY’S OFFICE

VALENZUELA DISTRICT OFFICE
st
1 Floor, Metropolitan Trial Court Bldg.
Justice Hall Compound, C.J. Santos St., Poblacion II,
Malinta, Valenzuela City

Through:

ATTY. RAFAEL D. PANGILINAN

Public Attorney II
Roll No. 64684
IBP OR No. 184712 dated 2/17/22 / CALMANA
MCLE Compliance No. VI - 0006876 dated 3/20/18

Copy furnished:
SACP Ana Liza C. Dogma

4|Page
Office of the City Prosecutor of Valenzuela City
atty_lizadogma@yahoo.com / ocpvalenzuela.ereceiving@gmail.com

Explanation on the mode of service:

Service of the foregoing comment was made to Office of the City
Prosecutor of Valenzuela City, as well as the Honorable Court through
electronic means in accordance with OCA Circular No. 205-2022 dated 15
August 2022 (Court Operations from 16 August 2022 Until Further Orders
of the Court) which authorizes the filing of pleadings, motions and other
court submissions through electronic mail in areas under Alert Levels 1, 2
or higher.

ATTY. RAFAEL D. PANGILINAN

5|Page