Republic of the Philippines

COURT OF APPEALS
Manila

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES,

Accused-Appellee, CA G.R. NO. ____________
RTC Branch 001, LAS
PINAS CITY
-versus- Crim. Case Nos. 14-001 to
14-003

MICHAEL DELA CERNA, For: Violation of Sec. 11 of

ARNOLD MARCELINO and R.A. 9165 (Possession of
JOSHUA GABOR Dangerous Drugs)
Plaintiff-Appellants.
x------------------------------------------------x

APPELLANT’S BRIEF

ATTY. MARICAR A. MENDOZA

Counsel for the Accused-Appellants
MENDOZA LAW OFFICE
#032 Brgy. Kaypaaba, Gen. E. Aguinaldo, Cavite
Email Address: mendozamaricar0902@gmail.com
Contact Number: 0936-853-9875 | 0917-132-0181

Page 1 of 31
 SUBJECT INDEX
Page
Title/Subject
No.
PREFARATORY STATEMENT 4-5
PARTIES 5
STATEMENT OF TIMELINESS OF APPEAL 6
STATEMENT OF THE CASE 6
STATEMENT OF FACTS 7-11
ASSIGNMENT OF ERRORS 11-12

1. THE REGIONAL TRIAL COURT GRAVELY ERRED

IN FINDING FOR THE PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE
CONSIDERING THAT THE PIECES OF
DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE OFFERED AND
PRESENTED BY THE PROSECUTION DURING
TRIAL WERE WITH BLATANT INSUFFICIENCIES
DISCREDITING THE INTEGRITY AND IDENTITY
OF THE ALLEGED CONFISCATED DRUGS.

2. THE REGIONAL TRIAL COURT COMMITTED

REVERSIBLE ERROR IN FINDING FOR THE
PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE NOTWITHSTANDING THE
FACT THAT THE PIECES OF TESTIMONIAL
EVIDENCE BY THE PROSECUTION WITNESSES
OFFERED AND PRESENTED DURING TRIAL
WERE PLAGUED WITH GLARING
INCONSISTENCIES AND IMPROBABILITIES
WHICH EVEN WHEN HYPOTHETICALLY
ADMITTED WOULD WEAKEN THE FOUNDATION
OF THE PROSECUTION’S ASSERTIONS AND
WOULD RENDER THE SAME IMPLAUSIBLE,
GIVING MERITS TO THE ACCUSED-APPELLANTS’
ACQUITTAL.

3. THE REGIONAL TRIAL COURT GRAVELY ERRED

IN CONVICTING THE ACCUSED-APPELLANTS
DESPITE THE PROSECUTION'S FAILURE TO
PROVE THEIR GUILT BEYOND RESONABLE
DOUBT.

Page 2 of 31
 4. THE REGIONAL TRIAL COURT COMMITTED
REVERSIBLE ERRORS WHICH IF NOT
CORRECTED WOULD RESULT TO GRAVE
INJUSTICE TO THE ACCUSED-APPELLANTS.
ARGUMENTS 12-30
PRAYER 30
LAW/AUTHORITIES CITED:

 Article VIII, Section 14 of the 1987 Philippine 4

Constitution

 Armando Go vs East Oceanic Leasing and Finance 5

Corporation, GR No. 206841, January 19, 2018

 Section 21, Republic Act No. 9165, otherwise known 13

as the “Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002

 Junie Mallilin vs People of the Philippines, G.R. No. 15

172953, April 30, 2008

 People of the Philippines vs Basher Tomawis, G.R. 16

No. 228890, April 18, 2018

 Lito Lopez vs People of the Philippines, G.R. No. 17

188653, January 29, 2014

 People of the Philippines vs Marcial D. Pulgo, G.R. 24

No. 218205, July 5, 2017

 Capistrano Daayata, Dexter Salisi and Bregido 25

Malacat, Jr. vs People of the Philippines, G.R. No.
205745, March 8, 2017

 Basilio vs People of the Philippines, 591 Phil. 508, 27

521–522 (2008)

 People of the Philippines vs Elizabeth Ganguso, G.R. 27

No. 115430, November 23, 1995

 Nilo Macayan vs People of the Philippines, G.R. No. 28

175842, March 18, 2015

Page 3 of 31
 Accused-Appellant, through the undersigned counsel, and to
this Honourable Court respectfully states and avers the following:

I. PREFARATORY STATEMENT

“Justice should remove the bandage from her eyes long

enough to distinguish between the vicious and the unfortunate.”

– Robert Green Ingersoll

In this case, an obvious violation and disregard of the

constitutional rights of the Accused-Appellants was committed when
the Honourable Regional Trial Court of Las Pinas City, Branch
001find for the Plaintiff-Appellee, based on the prosecution’s mere
allegations supported by pieces of evidence with blatant
insufficiencies and its witnesses’ testimonies with glaring
inconsistencies, disabling them to draw a conclusion in accordance
with Section 14, Article VIII of the Constitution1.

The Honourable Supreme Court has made a pronouncement in

a case, to which reads as:

“Faithful adherence to the requirements of

Section 14, Article VIII of the Constitution is
indisputably a paramount component of due
process and fair play. It is likewise demanded
by the due process clause of the Constitution.
The parties to a litigation should be informed
of how it was decided, with an explanation of
the factual and legal reasons that led to the
conclusions of the court. The court cannot

1
CONST. (1987), art. VIII, section 14

Page 4 of 31
 simply say that judgment is rendered in favour
of X and against Y and just leave it at that
without any justification whatsoever for its
action. The losing party is entitled to know
why he lost, so he may appeal to the higher
court, if permitted, should he believe that the
decision should be reversed. A decision that
does not clearly and distinctly state the facts
and the law on which it is based leaves the
parties in the dark as to how it was reached
and is precisely prejudicial to the losing
party, who is unable to pinpoint the possible
errors of the court for review by a higher
tribunal.”2(Emphasis ours)
Xxx

II. THE PARTIES

Accused-Appellants MICHAEL DELA CERNA, ARNOLD

MARCELINO and JOSHUA GABOR, are of legal ages, all Filipinos
They may be served with processes and notices from this Court at
the address of the undersigned counsel at Mendoza Law Office, 032
Brgy. Kaypaaba, Gen. E. Aguinaldo, Cavite.

Plaintiff-Appellee PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES is

represented by the OFFICE OF THE SOLICITOR GENERAL with
address at Amorsolo Street, Legaspi Village, Makati City where it
may be served with notices, orders and other legal processes of this
Court.

III. STATEMENT OF TIMELINESS OF THE APPEAL

2
Go vs East Oceanic Leasing and Finance Corporation, GR No. 206841, January 19, 2018

Page 5 of 31
 Accused-Appellants received on May 15, 2020 the Joint-
Judgment of the Regional Trial Court of Las Pinas City dated April 10,
2020. A Notice of Appeal was timely filed on May 30, 2020. Accused-
Appellants later then received, on June 16, 2020, the Order from the
Court of Appeals directing them to file their Appeal Brief within Fifteen
(15) days from receipt. Hence, this timely compliance.

IV. STATEMENT OF THE CASE

This is an appeal by the Accused-Appellants from the Joint-

Judgment of the Regional Trial Court of Las Pinas City, Branch 001
dated April 10, 2020 in Criminal Case Nos. 14-001, 14-002 and 14-
003 for Violation of Section 11 of Republic Act No. 9165, dispositive
portion of which reads as follows:

WHEREFORE, in view of the foregoing, the Court

hereby renders judgment as follows:

1. In Criminal Case No. 14-001, accused MICHAEL

DELA CERNA is hereby found GUILTY beyond
reasonable doubt for the crime of illegal
possession of methamphetamine hydrochloride and
is hereby sentenced to suffer the indeterminate
penalty of Twelve (12) years and One (1) day to
Fifteen (15) years and a fine of Three Hundred
Thousand Pesos (Php. 300,000.00).

2. In Criminal Case No. 14-002,accused ARNOLD

MARCELINO is hereby found GUILTY beyond
reasonable doubt for the crime of illegal
possession of methamphetamine hydrochloride and

Page 6 of 31
 is hereby sentenced to suffer the indeterminate
penalty of Twelve (12) years and One (1) day to
Fifteen (15) years and a fine of Three Hundred
Thousand Pesos (Php. 300,000.00).

3. In Criminal Case No. 14-003,accused JOSHUA

GABOR is hereby found GUILTY beyond reasonable
doubt for the crime of illegal possession of
methamphetamine hydrochloride and is hereby
sentenced to suffer the indeterminate penalty
of Twelve (12) years and One (1) day to Fifteen
(15) years and a fine of Three Hundred Thousand
Pesos (Php. 300,000.00).

SO ORDERED.

The Original Receiving Copy of the Joint-Judgment dated April

10, 2020 is hereto attached as ANNEX “1”.

V. STATEMENT OF FACTS

The true facts of this appealed case, contrary to the allegations

of the prosecution and to the findings of the trial court, were as
follows:

MICHAEL DELA CERNA was doing his routine work out at

around 1:00pm of February 14, 2014. He was jogging up and down
the Lodi Tenament at Coastal Road Las Pinas City. When he was
going down the staircase from the fourth floor leading to the third
floor, he saw five (5) or more policemen. Two of the policemen
suddenly grabbed him and dragged him to the fourth floor of the
tenament, violently kicked and slammed the door of Unit 408 and

Page 7 of 31
threw him inside. Inside the said unit, he saw Arnold Marcelino and
Joshua Gabor, the unit’s owner. One of the police officers
continuously beaten him, while the others mauled and beat Marcelino
and Gabor. After doing so, they were forced to confess that shabu
was found in their possession.

ARNOLD MARCELINO and JOSHUA GABOR recounted that

they were having their anniversary lunch at said date and time, when
they suddenly heard a violent knocking on their door. Upon opening
the door Marcelino was surprised when a police officer punched him
and another pointed a gun at Gabor. Then, they saw Dela Cruz being
man-handled and thrown inside their unit. They were beaten and
mauled helplessly by seven (7) police officers, they were forced to
confess that shabu was recovered in their possession.

The three (3) Accused-Appellants were then brought to an

isolated place in Molino, Bacoor, Cavite, where they were again
mauled and threatened with a gun to confess. Police Officer Anne
Buba then took two (2) transparent plastic sachets from the glove
compartment of the police van and then told them that those were the
drugs seized from them.

Thereafter, they were brought to the police headquarters where

they were booked and the sachets of white crystalline substance and
aluminium foil strips allegedly seized from them were marked. They
were detain the following day after the Forensic Chemist conducted a
laboratory examination of the white crystalline substance and the
same tested positive for methamphetamine hydrochloride.

Upon arraignment on March 1, 2014, the Accused-Appelants

pleaded NOT GUILTY to the crime charged against them.

Page 8 of 31
 During trial, the prosecution marked and presented the
following pieces of documentary and object evidence:

1. Duly accomplished Pre- coordination Report with the PDEA.

[Exhibit A]3.
2. Duly accomplished Pre- operation Report. [Exhibit B]4.
3. Affidavit of Arrest executed by PO1 Gabito, PO2 Tablate,
civilian Justine [Exhibit C]5.
4. Inventory of Seized Items, unsigned, except by the police
officer who prepared it. [Exhibit D]6.
5. Request for Laboratory Examination. [Exhibit E]7.
6. Physical Science Report, showing that the specimen submitted
for laboratory examination tested positive for methamphetamine
hydrochloride. [Exhibit F]8.
7. A chain of custody form showing the name and signature of
PO2 Tablate and the time of arrest and seizure, only. [Exhibit
G]9.
8. A transparent plastic sachet containing white crystalline
substance with marking “DM”. [Exhibit H]10.
9. A transparent plastic sachet containing white crystalline
substance with marking “MP”. [Exhibit I]11.
10. Six Pieces of aluminium foil strips. [Exhibit JG- [JG-5]]12

During the direct examination, PO1 Gabito testified that six (6)
police officers, namely: SPO1 Sunga; SPO3 Salitana; PO3
Salmasan; PO2 Tablate; PO1 Marino; and himself, were deployed
after the operatives of the Station Anti- Illegal Drugs (SAID) of Las
3
Records, p.100, Exhibit “A”
4
Records, p.101, Exhibit “B”
5
Records, p.102-104, Exhibit “C”
6
Records, p.105, Exhibit “D”
7
Records, p.106, Exhibit “E”
8
Records, p.107, Exhibit “F”
9
Records, p.108, Exhibit “G”
10
Records, p.109, Exhibit “H”
11
Records, p.110, Exhibit “I”
12
Records, p.111, Exhibit “JG-[JG-5]”

Page 9 of 31
Pinas City, received a call from the a female asset, whom they call
and know as “Biday”, informing them that a pot session was on
progress at the fourth floor of Lodi Tenement. He also testified that
he, together with PO2 Tablate and the civilian asset Biday, upon
arriving at said location, went up the building and while negotiating
the staircase from the third floor leading to the fourth floor, they saw
the three accused in the act of exchanging sachets containing white
crystalline substance. He identified: (a) the person handling the said
sachets as MICHAEL DELA CERNA (whom he referred to as the
“First Person” during the direct and cross examination) and who was
arrested by him; (b) the person to whom the said sachets were
handed to as ARNOLD MARCELINO (whom he referred to as the
“Second Person” during the direct and cross examination) who was
arrested by Justine (the civilian asset he identified as “Biday” at first);
and (c) the other person beside Dela Cerna as JOSHUA GABOR
(whom he referred to as the “Third Person” during the direct and
cross examination) who was arrested by PO2 Tablate.

Further, PO1 Gabito mentioned in his testimony that they

approached all three accused without them being noticed, which he
later affirmed on cross examination. As to the position of the three
accused when they spotted them in the act of exchanging sachets
containing white crystalline substance, he testified that all of them
were facing left side towards the direction of the arresting officers.

Uncorroboratively, PO2 Tablate testified that all of the above

named six (6) police officers, including the civilian asset, whom he
know and identified as “Justine”, went up the said building. According
to him, they were already in the fourth floor when they saw and
spotted the three accused in the act of exchanging sachets
containing white crystalline substance. He identified: (a) the person
handling the said sachets as MICHAEL DELA CERNA (whom he

Page 10 of 31
referred to as the “First Person” during the direct and cross
examination) and who was arrested by PO1 Gabito; (b) the person to
whom the said sachets were handed to as JOSHUA GABOR (whom
he referred to as the “Second Person” during the direct and cross
examination) who was arrested by him; and (c) the other person
beside Dela Cerna as (whom he referred to as the “Third Person”
during the direct and cross examination) who was arrested by the
civilian asset Justine.

In addition, the following three (3) prosecution witnesses were

presented:

1. The Receiving Officer of the crime laboratory who recieved the

specimen from the arresting officers and transmitted the same
to the Forensic Chemist;
2. The Forensic Chemist who testified that he conducted the
examination of the specimen submitted and that it tested
positive for methamphetamine hydrochloride; and
3. The Evidence Custodian who testified that he had the custody
of the specimen from the time it was submitted to him by the
forensic chemist and until he submitted said specimen to the
court when he testified.

V. ASSIGNMENT OF ERRORS

The trial court committed the following errors:

1. THE REGIONAL TRIAL COURT GRAVELY ERRED IN

FINDING FOR THE PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE CONSIDERING
THAT THE PIECES OF DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE
OFFERED AND PRESENTED BY THE PROSECUTION
DURING TRIAL WERE WITH BLATANT INSUFFICIENCIES

Page 11 of 31
 DISCREDITING THE INTEGRITY AND IDENTITY OF THE
ALLEGED CONFISCATED DRUGS.

2. THE REGIONAL TRIAL COURT COMMITTED REVERSIBLE

ERROR IN FINDING FOR THE PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE
NOTWITHSTANDING THE FACT THAT THE PIECES OF
TESTIMONIAL EVIDENCE BY THE PROSECUTION
WITNESSES OFFERED AND PRESENTED DURING TRIAL
WERE PLAGUED WITH GLARING INCONSISTENCIES AND
IMPROBABILITIES WHICH EVEN WHEN HYPOTHETICALLY
ADMITTED WOULD WEAKEN THE FOUNDATION OF THE
PROSECUTION’S ASSERTIONS AND WOULD RENDER THE
SAME IMPLAUSIBLE, GIVING MERITS TO THE ACCUSED-
APPELLANTS’ ACQUITTAL.

3. THE REGIONAL TRIAL COURT GRAVELY ERRED IN

CONVICTING THE ACCUSED-APPELLANTS DESPITE THE
PROSECUTION'S FAILURE TO PROVE THEIR GUILT
BEYOND RESONABLE DOUBT.

4. THE REGIONAL TRIAL COURT COMMITTED REVERSIBLE

ERRORS WHICH IF NOT CORRECTED WOULD RESULT TO
GRAVE INJUSTICE TO THE ACCUSED-APPELLANTS.

VI. ARGUMENTS

I.BLATANT INSUFFICIENCIES
WITH THE PIECES OF
DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE
PRESENTED BY THE
PROSECUTION DISCREDITING
THE INTEGRITY AND IDENTITY
OF THE ALLEGED
CONFISCATED DRUGS.

Page 12 of 31
 Section 21 of the Republic Act 9165 or the Comprehensive
Dangerous Drugs Act of 200213 provided and laid down the proper
procedure to be strictly followed when it comes to the custody and
disposition of confiscated, seized and/or surrendered dangerous
drugs in cases involving possession, sale or use of dangerous drugs,
said provision to read as:

Sec. 21. Custody and Disposition of

Confiscated, Seized and/or Surrendered
Dangerous Drugs, Plant Sources of Dangerous
Drugs, Controlled Precursors and Essential
Chemicals, Instruments/Paraphernalias and/or
Laboratory Equipment. The PDEA shall take
charge and have custody of all dangerous drugs,
plant sources of dangerous drugs, controlled
precursors and essential chemicals, as well as
instruments/paraphernalia and/or laboratory
equipment so confiscated, seized and/or
surrendered, for proper disposition in the
following manner:

(1) The apprehending team having initial

custody and control of the dangerous
drugs, controlled precursors and essential
chemicals, instruments/paraphernalia
and/or laboratory equipment shall,
immediately after seizure and
confiscation, conduct a physical inventory
of the seized items and photograph the
same in the presence of the accused or the
persons from whom such items were
confiscated and/or seized, or his/her
13
Rep. Act No. 9165 (2002), sec. 21

Page 13 of 31
 representative or counsel with an elected
public official and a representative of
National Prosecution Service or the media
who shall be required to sign the copies
of the inventory and be given a copy
thereof: Provided, That the physical
inventory and photograph shall be
conducted at the place where the search
warrant is served; or at the nearest
police station or at the nearest office of
the apprehending officer/team, whichever
is practicable, in case of warrantless
seizures: Provided, finally, That
noncompliance of these requirements under
justifiable grounds, as long as the
integrity and the evidentiary value of the
seized items are properly preserved by the
apprehending officer/team, shall not
render void and invalid such seizures and
custody over said items.

xxx

It has been decided in several drug cases that compliance

with the chain-of-custody rule is crucial in any and every
prosecution of the same.

As the chain of custody aims that the duly recorded authorized

movements and custody of seized drugs or controlled chemicals from
the time of seizure or confiscation, to receipt in the forensic
laboratory, to safe keeping, up to presentation in court for destruction.
The said rule is imperative for it is of much importance that the

Page 14 of 31
prohibited drug confiscated or recovered from the suspect is the very
same substance offered in court as exhibit, and that the identity of
the same is established with the same exactness, as that requisite is
very important to make a finding of guilt. It is to maintain the
integrity of the confiscated drugs used as evidence.

However, in the instant case, the said rule was not strictly
observed as can be seen from the copy of the Inventory of Seized
Items and the Chain of Custody Form offered and submitted as
evidence by the prosecution.

I.A. THREE-WITNESSES RULE

As stated above, the inventory of the seized items and the

photography of the same must be done in the presence of: (a)
the accused or his representative or counsel; (b) an elected
public official; (c) a representative from the prosecution or
the media, all of whom shall be required to sign the copies
of the said inventory and be given a copy thereof. This must
be followed because of the very nature of anti-drug operations,
like that of the operation conducted by the operatives of the
Station Anti-Illegal Drugs (SAID) of Las Pinas upon the alleged
receipt of the tip from a female asset which led to the arrest of
the Accused-Appellants, and the ease with which sticks of
marijuana and grams of heroin can be planted in the pockets of
or hands of unsuspecting people, where there is a great
possibility of abuse. This was stressed by the Court in the case
of Mallillin vs People14, when it stated that the possibility of
tampering, loss or mistake of an item is greatest when such
item is small and is one that has physical characteristics
fungible in nature and similar to substances familiar to people in

14
Mallilin vs People, G.R. No. 172953, April 30, 2008

Page 15 of 31
 their daily lives, like that of heroin and other types of dangerous
and prohibited drugs.

As there was no mention or any proof of the presence of

the above required witnesses and only one of the apprehending
officers, particularly the one who prepared the said inventory,
had signed the same, then there had been an irregularity with
the compliance with the chain of custody rule. Even assuming
that all of the said witnesses whose presence is required during
an inventory of seized drugs in an anti-drug operation, were
there, they should have signed the said inventory as proof of
their presence and have been given a copy thereof.

In the case of People vs Tomawis15, the Supreme Court

held that the above rule regarding the three-witnesses
requirement must be complied with for a successful prosecution
of a case involving sale or possession of illegal drugs. It further
held that the Court may allow deviation from the said rule only
when the following requisites are present: (1) the existence of
a justifiable ground to allow departure from the rule on strict
compliance; and (2) the integrity and the evidentiary value of
the seized items are properly preserved by the apprehending
team. [Emphasis ours]

Moreover, the Court stated, as it was as well decided in

several cases, that the procedure laid down in Section 21,
Article II of RA 9165 is a matter of substantial law, and cannot
be brushed aside as a simple procedural technicality, or worse,
ignored as an impediment to the conviction of illegal drugs
suspects. For indeed, however notable the purpose or
necessary the exigencies of the campaign against illegal drugs

15
People vs Tomawis, G.R. No. 228890, April 18, 2018

Page 16 of 31
 may be, it is still a governmental action that must always be
executed within the boundaries of law.

This means that unless there be a valid and just reason

that disabled the arresting officers from compliance to the said
rule, or even though the said rule was not strictly followed, it
was ensured that the confiscated item from the accused is the
very same item presented as evidence before the court, the
chain of custody rule must be strictly observed and followed.

I.B. INTEGRITY AND IDENTITY OF THE SEIZED ITEM

As to ensuring that the confiscated item from the accused

is the very same item presented as evidence before the court,
the chain of custody form plays an important role as proof of the
identity and integrity of the said seized item. However, even the
chain of custody form offered and presented by the prosecution
as evidence is as well stained with insufficiency and irregularity,
for it contains the name and signature of PO2 Tablate and the
time of arrest and seizure only.

In Lopez vs People16, the Supreme Court stressed that

chain of custody over dangerous drugs must be clearly
shown in order to establish the facts constituting the crime
committed by the accused. Therefore, it shall contain and
include proof of every link in the chain: from the moment the
item was picked up to the time it is offered as evidence, in such
a way that every person who touched the exhibit would
describe (a) how and from whom it was received, (b) where
it was and what happened to it while in the witness’
possession, (c) the condition in which it was received and

16
Lopez vs People, G.R. No. 188653, January 29, 2014

Page 17 of 31
 (d) the condition in which it was delivered to the next link in
the chain. The witnesses would then describe the precautions
taken to ensure that there had been no changes in the
condition of the item and that there was no opportunity for any
person not in the chain to have possession of the same. This is
to assure that the evidence presented before the court is the
one and the same as that seized from the accused. [Emphasis
ours]

Applying again the ruling in the case of Tomawis, there

must be the existence of a justifiable ground and an assurance
that the integrity and the evidentiary value of the seized items
are properly preserved by the apprehending team to justify the
less stringent compliance with the chain of custody rule.

Contrarily, in the case at bar, the chain of custody form

submitted before the court is blatantly insufficient as it did not
contain all the above mentioned information necessary to
ensure that the sachets containing white crystalline substance
confiscated was the very same item submitted to the PDEA
forensic laboratory for examination and presented as evidence
against the accused-appellant during trial.

II.GLARING INCONSISTENCIES
AND IMPROBABILITIES WITH
THE TESTIMONIES OF THE
WITNESSES OF THE
PROSECUTION

Even assuming, for purposes of argument, that the chain of

custody of the alleged confiscated drugs was strictly followed and the
integrity and identity of the same was properly preserved, the same

Page 18 of 31
would be irrelevant as the trial court still erred in giving credence to
the prosecution’s assertions.

The prosecution in the instant case failed to establish beyond

reasonable doubt the guilt of the accused-appellants due to its
witnesses’ uncorroborative testimonies and statements contrary to
simple and common logic negating the probability and plausibility of
its allegations to which the foundation of the commission of the crime
charged against the latter was established.

These inconsistent testimonies and improbable statements

were in the facts mentioned by the prosecution witnesses, particularly
PO1 Gabito and PO2 Tablate, in their respective testimonies during
the direct and cross examination, to wit:

a) Inconsistencies as to the circumstances surrounding the

arrest of the accused-appellants and the seizure of the
allegedly confiscated drugs.

As stated in the above statement of facts, the prosecution

witnesses gave uncorroborative testimonies as to the
circumstances surrounding the arrest of the accused-appellants
and the seizure of the allegedly confiscated drugs, to wit:

1. While PO1 Gabito stated that only he, PO2 Tablate and
the civilian asset “Biday” went up to the building upon
arriving at the location given by the said asset, PO2
Tablate, on the other hand, stated that all of the six (6)
deployed police officers for the conducted operation,
together with the civilian asset “Justine” went up the
building upon arriving there;

Page 19 of 31
2. While PO1 Gabito stated that they were negotiating the
winding staircase from the third floor leading to the fourth
floor, they saw and spotted the three accused in in the act
of exchanging sachets containing white crystalline
substance, PO2 Tablate stated that they were already on
the fourth floor when they saw the three accused; and

3. While PO1 Gabito identified: (a) the person handling the

said sachets as MICHAEL DELA CERNA (whom he
referred to as the “First Person” during the direct and
cross examination) and who was arrested by him; (b) the
person to whom the said sachets were handed to as
ARNOLD MARCELINO (whom he referred to as the
“Second Person” during the direct and cross examination)
who was arrested by Justine (the civilian asset he
identified as “Biday” at first); and (c) the other person
beside Dela Cerna as JOSHUA GABOR (whom he
referred to as the “Third Person” during the direct and
cross examination) who was arrested by PO2 Tablate,
PO2 Tablate, on the other hand, identified (a) the person
handling the said sachets as MICHAEL DELA CERNA
(whom he referred to as the “First Person” during the
direct and cross examination) and who was arrested by
PO1 Gabito; (b) the person to whom the said sachets
were handed to as JOSHUA GABOR (whom he referred
to as the “Second Person” during the direct and cross
examination) who was arrested by him; and (c) the other
person beside Dela Cerna as (whom he referred to as the
“Third Person” during the direct and cross examination)
who was arrested by the civilian asset Justine.

Page 20 of 31
 The testimonies of the prosecution witnesses failed to
corroborate and clearly establish the material facts regarding
the circumstances leading to the arrest of the Accused-
Appellants.

Ordinarily, a witness can be mistaken as to the identity of

some, especially if it involves a large group but not as to the
number, especially if the activity involves tight tactical
coordination. The variance is great, PO1 Gabito testified that
there were three (3) of them who went up the fourth floor of the
building. Whereas, PO2 Tablate testified that there were seven
(7) of them. The variance cannot be said to be a result of
lapses or failure of recollection, because in such cases an
estimate may be had, in order that it may closely resemble the
truth, that is, if indeed, that was the truth.

Even the identity of the civilian asset was not clearly

identified. PO1 Gabito initially stated that it was a female
named “Biday” but later on negated his own statement and said
the name was not “Biday” but “Justine”. However, on cross-
examination, he again stated that it was “Biday”. PO2 Tablate,
on the other hand, referred to the civilian asset as “Justine”.
Adding to the doubt was the fact that, as per PO1 Gabito and
PO2 Tablate’s statements, this civilian asset, whoever she is,
was the one who arrested the “third person”. Having played an
important role in the arrest of the three Accused-Appellants, this
civilian asset was not called to testify for the prosecution during
the trial.

More importantly, PO1 Gabito and PO2 Tablate failed to

clearly identify who among the three accused was handling the
alleged confiscated drug, to whom it was handed to, and who

Page 21 of 31
 was the other person involved in the exchange of drugs when
they caught them.

It is important to note that, the prosecution’s failure to

corroborate the material facts of the arrest of the three
Accused-Appellants, and the fact that the witnesses to such
arrest presented by the prosecution were only the arresting
officers, PO1 Gabito and PO2 Tablate, themselves, cast great
doubt to the prosecution’s assertions giving more weight to the
truthfulness and veracity of the Accused-Appellant’s version of
the story. After all, it has been consistently held in unbroken
chains of jurisprudence that while an accused in a criminal case
is presumed innocent until proven guilty, the evidence of the
prosecution must stand on its own strength and not rely on the
weakness of the evidence of the defense.

b) Improbabilities as to the circumstances surrounding the

arrest of the accused-appellants and the seizure of the
allegedly confiscated drugs.

It can be noticed from the transcript of the testimonies of

the prosecution witnesses, PO1 Gabito narrated that, as they
negotiated the staircase leading to the fourth floor of the
building, it was then that they saw the three accused. In his
narration, he said that all three accused were facing left side
towards the direction of the arresting officers. However, simple
spatial logic would tell, that persons facing each other would be
inversely facing a person or persons approaching them. Both
would either be facing right and the other facing left from the
point of view of the person approaching them as in the case of
PO1 Gabito, relative to their position when they were
negotiating the steps leading to the fourth floor when they

Page 22 of 31
allegedly saw the three accused in the act of exchanging
something, purportedly dangerous drugs.

Another improbability is when PO1 Gabito mentioned in

his testimony that they approached all three accused without
them being noticed which he later affirmed on cross
examination. No evidence proved that they were concealed or
obscured by some object in order that they may go unnoticed.
Neither was there any proof that the staircase was built or
designed in such a way that persons going to and fro the floors
can proceed unnoticed. As noted by the three Accused-
Appellants, it was impossible for them not to notice persons
climbing the staircase if indeed it was true that they were
chanced upon at the very end of the staircase at the fourth
floor. Even assuming that the Accused-Appellants were indeed
exchanging the alleged confiscated drug, human experience
would tell us that they would have been very attentive of their
surroundings knowing that what they were doing is illegal. If
such was the case, the more the arresting officers cannot
approach them without being noticed.

Lastly, if PO1 Gabito’s testimony as to the number of the

operatives who went up the building was true, it is as well
difficult to believe that they have arrested the Accused-
Appellants in the manner narrated by them if one of them was
the female civilian asset. PO2 Tablate’s testimony, on the other
hand, is consistent with the testimony of Accused Joshua
Gabor and Arnold Marcelino, when they said that there were
more than three police officers who barged in to Room 408, and
thereafter arrested them, which gives more credence to the
latter’s statements.

Page 23 of 31
 These inconsistencies and improbabilities with the
prosecution witnesses render its allegations implausible,
weakening the foundation of its assertions which establishes
the accused-appellants’ alleged commission of the crime
charged against them. Again, it has been consistently held in
unbroken chains of jurisprudence that while an accused in a
criminal case is presumed innocent until proven guilty, the
evidence of the prosecution must stand on its own strength and
not rely on the weakness of the evidence of the defense.

Furthermore, in the case of People vs Pulgo17, as well as

in several other cases, the Supreme Court reiterated the weight
of the trial court’s factual finding in this wise:

“This is so because the trial court

has the unique opportunity to observe the
demeanour, conduct and attitude of
witnesses under grueling
examination. These are the most
significant factors in evaluating the
sincerity of witnesses and in unearthing
the truth, especially in the face of
conflicting testimonies. Through its
observations during the entire
proceedings, the trial court can be
expected to determine, with reasonable
discretion, whose testimony to accept and
which witness to believe. Hence, it is a
settled rule that appellate courts will
not overturn the factual findings of the
trial court unless there is a showing that
the latter overlooked facts or
17
People vs Pulgo, G.R. No. 218205, July 5, 2017

Page 24 of 31
 circumstances of weight and substance that
would affect the result of the case.”

xxx

Considering the above discussed, the instant case falls

squarely within the aforestated exception to the rule that the
factual findings of the trial court shall not be overturned or
disturbed. There is a great showing that the trial court had
overlooked these material facts and circumstance which are of
weight and substance and would affect the result of the case if
given consideration and merits.

III.PROSECUTION'S FAILURE
TO PROVE THE ACCUSED-
APPELLANT’S GUILT BEYOND
RESONABLE DOUBT.

The above discussed errors and misapprehension of facts and

pieces of evidence presented committed by the trial court suggest
that the prosecution failed to establish and prove beyond reasonable
doubt the accused-appellants’ guilt.

In the case of Daayata, et. al. vs People18, the Supreme Court

reiterated the already established rule on an accused guilt beyond
reasonable, which states:

Conviction in criminal actions demands

proof beyond reasonable doubt. Rule 133,
Section 2 of the Revised Rules on Evidence
states:

18
Daayata, et. al. vs People, G.R. No. 205745, March 8, 2017

Page 25 of 31
 Section 2. Proof beyond reasonable doubt.
- In a criminal case, the accused is entitled
to an acquittal, unless his guilt is shown
beyond reasonable doubt. Proof beyond
reasonable doubt does not mean such a degree of
proof as, excluding possibility of error,
produces absolute certainty. Moral certainty
only is required, or that degree of proof which
produces conviction in an unprejudiced mind.

While not impelling such a degree of proof

as to establish absolutely impervious
certainty, the quantum of proof required in
criminal cases nevertheless charges the
prosecution with the immense responsibility of
establishing moral certainty, a certainty that
ultimately appeals to a person's very
conscience. While indeed imbued with a sense of
altruism, this imperative is borne, not by a
mere abstraction, but by constitutional
necessity:

This rule places upon the prosecution the

task of establishing the guilt of an accused,
relying on the strength of its own evidence,
and not banking on the weakness of the defense
of an accused. Requiring proof beyond
reasonable doubt finds basis not only in the
due process clause of the Constitution, but
similarly, in the right of an accused to be
"presumed innocent until the contrary is
proved." "Undoubtedly, it is the constitutional
presumption of innocence that lays such burden
Page 26 of 31
 upon the prosecution." Should the prosecution
fail to discharge its burden, it follows, as a
matter of course, that an accused must be
acquitted. As explained in Basilio v. People of
the Philippines19:

We ruled in People v. Ganguso20:

An accused has in his favour the

presumption of innocence which the Bill of
Rights guarantees. Unless his guilt is
shown beyond reasonable doubt, he must be
acquitted. This reasonable doubt standard
is demanded by the due process clause of
the Constitution which protects the
accused from conviction except upon proof
beyond reasonable doubt of every fact
necessary to constitute the crime with
which he is charged. The burden of proof
is on the prosecution, and unless it
discharges that burden the accused need
not even offer evidence in his behalf, and
he would be entitled to an acquittal.
Proof beyond reasonable doubt does not, of
course, mean such degree of proof as,
excluding the possibility of error,
produce absolute certainty. Moral
certainty only is required, or that degree
of proof which produces conviction in an
unprejudiced mind. The conscience must be

19
Basilio v. People, 591 Phil. 508, 521–522 (2008)
20
People v. Ganguso, G.R. No. 115430, November 23, 1995

Page 27 of 31
 satisfied that the accused is responsible
for the offense charged.

Well-entrenched in jurisprudence is
the rule that the conviction of the
accused must rest, not on the weakness of
the defense, but on the strength of the
prosecution. The burden is on the
prosecution to prove guilt beyond
reasonable doubt, not on the accused to
prove his innocence.[Emphasis ours]

xxx

Following this well-entrenched rule, the prosecution’s failure to

establish and prove the accused-appellants’ guilt beyond reasonable
doubt warrants the latter’s acquittal. Therefore, leading to the fourth
assignment of error.

IV. REVERSIBLE ERRORS

RESULTING TO GRAVE
INJUSTICE TO THE ACCUSED-
APPELLANTS.

The Supreme Court, in the case of Macayan vs People21,

stressed and emphasized the overriding consideration in our criminal
justice system in this wise:

“xxx As is settled in jurisprudence, where

the basis of conviction is flawed, this court
must acquit an accused.

21
Macayan vs People, G.R. No. 175842, March 18, 2015

Page 28 of 31
 In criminal cases, the prosecution has the
onus probandi of establishing the guilt of the
accused. Ei incumbit probatio non qui negat. He
who asserts - not he who denies - must prove.
The burden must be discharged by the
prosecution on the strength of its own
evidence, not on the weakness of that for the
defense. Hence, circumstantial evidence that
has not been adequately established, much less
corroborated, cannot be the basis of
conviction. Suspicion alone is insufficient,
the required quantum of evidence being proof
beyond reasonable doubt. Indeed, "the sea of
suspicion has no shore, and the court that
embarks upon it is without rudder or compass."

It must be stressed that in our criminal

justice system, the overriding consideration is
not whether the court doubts the innocence of
the accused, but whether it entertains a
reasonable doubt as to their guilt. Where there
is no moral certainty as to their guilt, they
must be acquitted even though their innocence
may be questionable. The constitutional right
to be presumed innocent until proven guilty can
be overthrown only by proof beyond reasonable
doubt.

With the prosecution having failed to

discharge its burden of establishing Macayan's
guilt beyond reasonable doubt, this court is
constrained, as is its bounden duty when

Page 29 of 31
 reasonable doubt persists, to acquit him.”
[Emphasis ours]

xxx

In view of this, and of the above discussed issues and

arguments, the Honourable Judge of the Regional Trial Court, having
clearly erred in giving more weight and consideration to the doubts on
the innocence of the Accused-Appellants rather than the reasonable
doubt as to their guilt, leading to their erroneous and unjust
conviction, had gravely miscarried justice to their prejudice. These
errors, however, are reversible, and if given due and proper perusal,
and consequently accorded with warranted reversal, could still serve
the justice as contemplated and aimed to be served by our judicial
system.

All told, the Accused-Appellants should be acquitted.

PRAYER

WHEREFORE, premises considered, it is respectfully prayed

before this Honourable Court that the Joint Judgement dated April 10,
2020 rendered by the Regional Trial Court of Las Pinas City, Branch
001 be REVERSED and SET ASIDE and a new one be entered
ACQUITTING the Accused-Appellants Michael Dela Cerna, Arnold
Marcelino and Joshua Gabor of the crime charged against them.

Other reliefs just and equitable under the circumstances are

likewise prayed for.

July 04, 2020, Cavite for Manila.

Page 30 of 31
 MENDOZA LAW OFFICE
Counsel for the Accused-Appellants
032 Brgy. Kaypaaba, Gen. E. Aguinaldo,
Cavite, 4124, Philippines
Contact No.: 0917-132-0181
Email Address: info_mlo@gmail.com

By:

ATTY. MARICAR A. MENDOZA

PTR No. 0123456; 01/07/2020; Naic
IBP Lifetime No. 90296; 01/07/2020; Cavite Chapter
Roll of Attorneys No. 12345
MCLE Compliance No.: I-0000123; 01/07/2020

Copy Furnished:

OFFICE OF THE SOLICITOR GENERAL

Counsel for the People of the Philippines
Amorsolo Street, Legaspi Village,
Makati City

REGIONAL TRIAL COURT OF LAS PINAS CITY

BRANCH 001
Hall of Justice, Las Pinas City

EXPLANATION

A copy of this Appellants’ Brief was served through registered

mail with return card due to the lack of field personnel of the
undersigned counsel at this time to effect personal service.

ATTY. MARICAR A. MENDOZA

Page 31 of 31