Republic of the Philippines

National Capital Judicial Region

REGIONAL TRIAL COURT
Branch 282, Valenzuela City

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES,

-versus- Crim. Case No. 1351-V-22

For: Violation of Sec. 5, Art. II, RA
SHIELA MARIE JAYME y 9165
SARMIENTO and LEO BUERE y
LADIMO,
Accused.
x----------------------x
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES,

-versus- Crim. Case No. 1352-V-22

For: Violation of Sec. 11, Art. II, RA
SHIELA MARIE JAYME y 9165
SARMIENTO,
Accused.
x----------------------x
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES,
Crim. Case No. 1353-V-22
-versus- For: Violation of Sec. 11, Art. II, RA
9165
TYRONE ALIPIO y BONDOC,
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 submits this comment
to the Formal Offer of Exhibits of the prosecution and avers as follows:

Exhibit Comment
A self-serving and biased
B
C
D to D-2 should not be given probative value
as there is no proof that the accused
underwent diagnostic examination or
was actually checked up by a
physician in order to determine her
health condition
E admitted only as to existence but

1|Page
F objected for the purposes for which
G they were offered
H
I 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 he
was allegedly told to affix his
signature therein
J 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
K admitted only as to existence but
L objected for the purposes for which
M they were offered
N self-serving; no independent proof
that the money indicated therein
came from the PNP
O coordination appears to be a mere
P farce designed to make it appear
that coordination with the PDEA-
RONCR was done before the buy-
bust operation
Q photocopy which is violative of the
best evidence rule; original
identification card was not presented
by the witness and was not
compared with the photocopy on
record; prosecution failed to lay
down the predicate for the
introduction of secondary or
substitutionary evidence in lieu of

2|Page
 the original
R 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
S admitted only as to existence but
T objected for the purposes for which
U they were offered
V fruit of a poisonous tree
W to W-3 not properly authenticated by the
person who took the photographs;
date and time when the photographs
when and place where taken are not
visible therein; not all members of
the buy-bust operation are visible in
the photographs; act of marking and
inventorying the seized evidence is
not apparent from the photographs
X date and time when and place where
the photographs were 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
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
Y photocopies which are violative of
Y-1 the best evidence rule; original
identification cards were not
presented by the witnesses and were
not compared with the photocopy on
record; prosecution failed to lay
down the predicate for the
introduction of secondary or
substitutionary evidence in lieu of
the original

3|Page
Z 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
AA fruits of a poisonous tree
AA-1
BB
CC 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)
EE admitted only as to existence but
EE-1 objected for the purposes for which
they were offered
F transmittal of letter-request to the
barangay elected official appears to
be a mere farce designed to make it
appear that coordination therewith
was done prior to the conduct of the
buy-bust operation

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, 15 December 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

4|Page
 Public Attorney II
Roll No. 64684
IBP OR No. 184712 dated 2/17/22 / CALMANA
MCLE Compliance No. VII - 0024379 valid until 4/14/2025

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