Republic of the Philippines

National Capital Judicial Region

REGIONAL TRIAL COURT
Branch 282, Valenzuela City

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES,

-versus- Crim. Case No. 704-V-22

For: Violation of Sec. 5, Art. II, RA
ARON CEDRICK GOMEZ y BARANA 9165
and JAVIER VILLAMOR y DUQUE,
Accused.
x - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - x Crim. Case No. 705-V-22
-versus- For: Violation of Sec. 11, Art. II, RA
9165
ARON CEDRICK GOMEZ y BARANA,
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
D coordination and transmittal of
E letters-request to the DOJ, elected
F public official and media
G representative appear to be a mere
H farce designed to make it appear
I that coordination with them and with
the PDEA-RONCR was done before
the buy-bust operation
J date and time when the photographs
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
METC Valenzuela City or of any staff
at the Office of the City Prosecutor of
Valenzuela City who was present and
has personal knowledge regarding

1|Page
 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
J-2 date and time when the photographs
when and place where taken are not
visible therein; affidavit or testimony
of the personnel from the barangay
who supposedly received the letter-
request was not presented
K no proof that the money indicated
therein came from the PNP
L to L-4 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; not all members of
the buy-bust team are visible in the
photographs which raises suspicion if
the other buy-bust members who
were not present in the photographs
attended the briefing or, even more
so, were present during the
supposed buy-bust
M 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
N and N-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

2|Page
O to O-2 not properly authenticated by the
P to P-4 person who took the photographs;
Q to Q-2 date and time when the photographs
when and place where taken are not
visible therein; person who took the
photographs was not stated; not all
members of the buy-bust operation
are visible in the photographs; listing
of seized in the inventory form is not
apparent in the photographs; act of
police officers and insulating
witnesses in affixing their signature
in the inventory form is not apparent
in the photographs; act of placing
the seized evidence in a self-sealing
transparent evidence bag is similarly
not apparent in the photographs
R to R-2 not properly authenticated by the
S to S-6 person who took the photographs;
T and T-1 date and time when and place where
the photographs were taken are not
visible therein
U admitted only as to existence but
V objected for the purposes for which
W they were offered
X
Y 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
Z and Z-1 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
AA admitted only as to existence but
AA-1 objected for the purposes for which
BB they were offered

3|Page
BB-1
CC 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; no magnified image
of the document which the insulating
witnesses held and, thus, it cannot
be said that the said document refers
to the inventory form
DD fruits of a poisonous tree
EE
FF photocopies which are violative of
FF-1 the original document rule as
FF-2 articulated in Section 3, Rule 130 of
2019 Amendments to the Revised
Rules on Evidence; no certified true
copy of was submitted by the
prosecution; prosecution failed to lay
the predicate for the admission of
secondary or substitutionary
evidence in lieu of the original
BB and series 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)
GG fruits of a poisonous tree
GG-1
HH
HH-1
HH-2
II
JJ
KK
LL
MM
NN to NN-4 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)
OO admitted only as to existence but
objected for the purposes for which
it was offered
PP self-serving and biased; does not
accurately depict the place of arrest
of accused
QQ admitted only as to existence but
4|Page
QQ-1 objected for the purposes for which
it was offered

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, 12 September 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
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