Criminal Law II Witness Testimonies Assessment

CRIMINAL LAW II PROJECT:
Assessment of prosectution
witnesses testimonies
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Crimes Against Public Order
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES v. JAY PAL ROLEDA
CRIMINAL CASE NO.:
K-64
FOR:
ALARMS AND SCANDALS

(ART. 155 OF REVISED PENAL CODE) 1
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES v. PATRICIO BENITEZ QUISEL
CRIMINAL CASE NO.:
2015-23168
FOR:
VIOLATION OF RA 10591
2
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES v. Roy Antiquina Catadman
CRIMINAL CASE NO.:
2015-22930
FOR:
VIOLATION OF RA 10591
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES v. RIGE CALUGCUGAN

CRIMINAL CASE NO.:
2015-22694
FOR:
VIOLATION OF SECTION 28
OF R.A. 10591
Crimes Against Public Interest

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES v. CHRISTOPHER FANDIALAN
Y VERGARA
CRIMINAL CASE NO.:
I-108-R
FOR:
FALSIFICATION OF
PUBLIC DOCUMENT

(ART. 172 OF REVISED PENAL CODE) 6
Crimes Related to Opium and Other Prohibited Drugs

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES v. REME GREGORIO
CRIMINAL CASE NO.:
22495 AND 22496
FOR:
VIOLATION OF SECTIONS 5 AND 11,

ARTICLE II OF RA 9165
NAME OF WITNESS:
PO2 EUGENE CALUMBA
PCI JOSEPHINE S. LLENA8
NAME OF WITNESS:
REME GREGORIO
11
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES v. JONAS QUISEL DAGOHOY
CRIMINAL CASE NO.:
225201
FOR:
VIOLATIONS OF SECTIONS 5 AND11,

14
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES vs. MARLON CORTES
CRIMINAL CASE NOS.:
22490 AND 22491
FOR:
VIOLATION OF SECTIONS 5 AND11,

16
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES v. MARRY BLISS BURLASA
CRIMINAL CASE NO.:
2014-22384
FOR:
VIOLATION OF SECTION 5,

17
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES v. CHRISTAZALYN ZUNIEGA
CRIMINAL CASE NO.:
22512
FOR:

ARTICLE II RA 9165
19
ii
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES v. ARCHER TRUPA and

ANILOU TRUPA
CRIMINAL CASE NO.:
20838
FOR:

21
PEOPLE vs. KHETZEL M. MINAO

CRIMINAL CASE NO.:
2134
FOR:
VIOLATION OF SEC. 5,

ART. II, RA 9165
23
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES v. ANGELO BASONA y TORRES

CRIMINAL CASE NOS.:
20555 & 20556
FOR:
VIOLATION OF SECTION 5 & 11,

ART. II OF RA 9165
25
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES v. VHILISIKE DURAN y RATUNIL
CRIMINAL CASE NO.:
21973 & 21974
FOR:
VIOLATION OF SEC. 5 & 11 OF ART. II
RA. 9165
31
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES v. CHRISTZALYN ZUNIEGA
CRIMINAL CASE NO.:
22512
FOR:
VIOLATION OF SEC. 5, ARTICLE II,
RA 9165
32
iii
Crimes Against Persons

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES v. ROGER HEMOYA Y BINIGAY
ET AL
CRIMINAL CASE NO.:
2015-23172
FOR:
MURDER, ART. 248 OF
REVISED PENAL CODE
NAME OF WITNESS:
NICANOR ERNESTO TAGLE 34
NAME OF WITNESS:
DR. DELIA FUTALAN
35
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES v. ARWIN ABELLA y MAYANO
CRIMINAL CASE NOS.:
21766 & 21767
FOR:
FRUSTRATED MURDER AND
HOMICDE ARTS. 248 AND 249 OF
REVISED PENAL CODE
36
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES v. ANDRES L. TUBAT
CRIMINAL CASE NO.:
21714
FOR:
FRUSTRATED HOMICIDE, ART. 249 OF
REVISED PENAL CODE
38
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES v ELEAZAR BABOR Y AMORGANDA
CRIMINAL CASE NO.:
09-001
FOR:
HOMICIDE, ART. 249 OF
REVISED PENAL CODE
40
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES v. EMERIO
CRIMINAL CASE NO.:
2016-234700
FOR:
RAPE, ART. 266-A OF
REVISED PENAL CODE
iv
42
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES v. XXX (CICL)

CRIMINAL CASE NO.:
2015-23291
FOR:
RAPE, ART. 266-A OF
REVISED PENAL CODE
43
Crimes Against Liberty and Security

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES v. HAROLD ABOY PARAO
CRIMINAL CASE NO.:
CC-ZAM-2015-1832
FOR:
GRAVE THREATS,

ART. 282 (2) OF THE
REVISED PENAL CODE
44
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES v. RALPH GAVIN HUGHES

CRIMINAL CASE NO:
CC-DAU-2015-1837
FOR:
GRAVE COERCION,

ART. 286 OF REVISED PENAL CODE 45
Crimes Against Property

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES v. GINO SEBONGGA AND JR
SEBONGGA
CRIMINAL CASE NO.:
23329
FOR: ARSON

(ARTS. 320 TO 326 OF REVISED PENAL CODE, AS

AMMENDED P.D 1613)
47
Crimes Against Chastity

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES v. JOCELYN FREI
CRIMINAL CASE NO.:
C-150
FOR:
SIMPLE SLANDER BY DEED,

ART. 359 OF REVISED PENAL CODE 48
vi

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES v. JAY PAL ROLEDA
Criminal Case No.: K-64
For:
Alarms and Scandals

(Art. 155 of Revised Penal Code)
Name of Witness:
PO3 Alwood Algona

On May 9, 2015 at 9:20 in the morning, PO3 Alwood Algona got a
call from Rebecca, the complainant, asking for help because a
man is standing and shouting outside the complainants house.
Upon arrival, PO3 Algona saw a man standing outside her house.
He was standing outside the fence holding a stone and shouting
Pagawsa na si Nanay kai makig sturya ko. Ngano man ko ninyo
gi sa Barangay? Labayon nako na inyong balay ron bun-on nakog
bato, pagawsa si Nanay! PO3 Algona said that the accused did
nothing else aside from that.
The crime of Alarms and Scandals (article 155) has the penalty of
arresto menor or a fine not exceeding P200 pesos shall be imposed
upon:
1. Any person who within any town or public place, shall
discharge any firearm, rocket, firecracker, or other explosives
calculated to cause alarm or danger;
2. Any person who shall instigate or take an active part in any
charivari or other disorderly meeting offensive to another or
prejudicial to public tranquility;
3. Any person who, while wandering about at night or while
engaged in any other nocturnal amusements, shall disturb the
public peace; or
4. Any person who, while intoxicated or otherwise, shall cause
any disturbance or scandal in public places, provided that
the circumstances of the case shall not make the provisions of
Article 153 applicable.
Based on the witness testimony, the acts of the accused did not
constitute the crime of Alarms and Scandals. It did not meet the
elements of the crime; therefore, the case should be dismissed.
Prepared by: Gail Borromeo

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES v. PATRICIO BENITEZ QUISEL
Criminal Case No.:
For:
Name of Witness:
2015-23168
Violation of RA 10591
Francisco Rizada
At around 9:00 in the evening at Zone Too, Doris Delos Santos Velez
reported to Barangay Looc Tanod Francisco Rizada that someone pointed a gun at her. Co Barangay Tanod Paulino Balatanto
called the police. SPO1 Arabe responded to the call. Arabe and
the two Barangay tanods went to Zone Two to investigate. When
they arrived, they saw the accused waving his gun, but this time
it was toward a stevedore. Rozada then asked the accused to
stay calm because at that time it was evident that the accused
was very drunk. The police officer asked the accused if he had
documents for his his firearm. The accused could not show either
license to own nor to carry the said firearm. The accused voluntarily surrendered the firearm after the SPO1 Arabe negotiated
with him. It was a 22-calibre handgun. Four live ammunitions were
also surrendered along with the handgun. It was confirmed that
the live ammunitions were for the same gun.
RA 10591 is An act Providing for a Comprehensive Law on Firearms
and Ammunition and Providing Penalties for Violations Thereof.
This crime is committed when a person possesses or carries an
unlicensed firearm. Sec. 28 of RA 10591 provides the penalty for
Unlawful Acquisition or Possession of Firearms and Ammunition. This
case falls squarely as a violation of Sec. 28 (a) for unlawful Possession of a small arm. Small arms include handguns, pistols, revolvers,
rifles, etc. The 22-calibre hand gun carried by the accused is considered a small arm. In crimes punished by special laws, the act
alone, irrespective of its motives, constitutes the crime. This crime
being a mala prohibita, criminal intent need not be proved. The
mere fact that the accused was carrying an unlicensed firearm
consummates the crime. Based on the testimony given by the
witness, the commission of the crime was proved.
Prepared by: Junn Justice O. Guazon

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES v. Roy Antiquina Catadman
Criminal Case No.:
For:
Name of witness:
2015-22930
Violation of RA 10591
PO1 Tony June Escala
The witness is the arresting officer (witness) of the accused in this case. The
witness was authorized by the Chief of the Police as poseur-buyer for the
buy-bust operation at Zone 1, Looc, Dumaguete City. Witness is able to
pinpoint the identity of accused and transacted with him. He was shown
to choose shabu which costed Php 1,000. Witness only had Php500
marked money with him but still was able to hand it to the accused in exchange for the shabu. Witness then arrested the accused and searched
him for safety. An unlicensed .45 caliber pistol was found among others.
Then, two separate Informations were filed for violation of RA 10591 and
RA 9165. From the tone of the trial, the defense questioned the validity of
the arrest since the amount of 500 pesos was lacking which indicates that
the sale was not consummated and thus, the search was also invalid.
On the question of the validity of the arrest, the answer must be in the affirmative. This case involves a consummated sale of prohibited drugs in a
buy-bust operation. In People v Willy Yang (G.R. no. 148077), the consummation of the crime may be established in the absence of an exchange
money. The crime of illegal sale is committed as soon as the transaction
is committed. The payment could follow later. Thus, the lack of the exact
amount does not prejudice the sale and the arrest is nonetheless valid.
Now, on the question of whether the warrantless search was valid, it must
be noted that a valid warrantless arrest precedes a valid warrantless
search. The accused was caught on the occasion of the commission of
the crime in flagrante delicto, therefore the subsequent search was also
valid. Furthermore, Sec 28 of RA 10591 penalizes mere possession of an
unlicensed firearm and Sec 29 states that if a crime is committed without
using the unlicensed firearm, violation of RA 10591 shall be considered as
a distinct and separate offense. Thus, PO1 Escala was correct in charging
accused for violation of RA 10591 as separate and distinct from the violation of RA 9165.
Prepared by: Ian Van Mamugay

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES v. RIGE CALUGCUGAN
Criminal Case No.:
For:

Name of witness:
2015-22694
Violation of Section 28 of R.A. 10591
Police Officer 3 Degura
PO3 Degura was the prosecutions third witness. He was made to

examine the gun, ammunitions and magazine presented in court
and confirmed that it was the one he seized from the accused.
The ammunitions presented during the trial were removed from the
magazine.
The Counsel for the defense questioned him regarding the position
of the firearm. According to him, the firearm was placed inside the
holster. He repeatedly said that the holster of the firearm was tuck
in the waist of the accused with the handle of the gun exposed.
Judge Enot asked the witness to show to the court how exactly
it was tucked. The witness demonstrated how the accused was
sitting in front of the sari-sari store at the time of the arrest. The gun
was under the Riges shirt. It was only exposed when the accused
moved after they announced that they were police officers. The
counsel of the defense also rebutted it by saying that the accused
know that carrying a firearm without a license is illegal, so the accused should have hidden it or concealed it away from anyones
sight. The witness disputed this by saying that considering that the
accused was caught in the wee hours in the evening, he wasnt
on guard of his actions. In addition, there was a light bulb in the sari-sari store located on the left side behind the accused. So when
PO3 Degura announced that he was a police officer, accused
stood up. He was then standing behind the accused but he saw
the gun protruding already.
Illegal possession of firearms is consummated by:
(1) possession of a firearm or a part thereof and
(2) lack of authority or license to possess the same
In this case, the first requisite is beyond dispute as the subject firearm was recovered from the person of accused, identified in court
as the same firearm, and offered in evidence during trial. As to the

second requisite, the testimony of the witness did not touch on
that part. The non-possession of a license is a negative fact, which
constitutes an essential ingredient of the offense of illegal possession, and it is the duty of the prosecution not only to allege it but
also to prove it beyond reasonable doubt.
Prepared by: Karen S. Dungog

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES v. CHRISTOPHER FANDIALAN Y VERGARA
Criminal Case No.:
For:

Name of witness:

I-108-R
Falsification of Public Document
(Art. 172 of Revised Penal Code)
Edu Salvador Trasmonte
(52 years old, NBI Specialist Agent)
The witness came to know the accused, Christopher Fandialan

through a surveillance operation conducted after a certain Raymond Bihasa, who was arrested for the same offense, testified that
he and the accused were partners in producing spurious drivers
licenses. The witness mentioned that at around 4 oclock of August
5, 2013 he saw the accused with Bihasa for the first time outside
the Gate 7 of Silliman University handing and receiving documents.
On August 9, 2013, the witness arrested the accused following an
entrapment operation somewhere in barangay Calindagan which
involved a poseur client. The witness admitted that other than
Bihasas statements he had no personal knowledge as to whether
the accused was carrying a fake license at the time of the arrest.
After said entrapment, he placed the recovered entrapment
money, the professional drivers licenses with corresponding receipts and other circumstantial evidences in a brown envelope at
the place of the incident. Thereafter, he prepared a letter request
to LTO Dumaguete for certification of authenticity with respect to
the recovered drivers licenses, but there was no mention that he
did the same prior to arresting the accused. The witness asserted
that their basis in arresting the accused, apart from Bihasas testimonies, was the fact that the accused received the entrapment
money and the pieces of paper handed by the poseur client. This
was the act that prompted them to arrest the accused.
The elements of the crime of using a falsified document in transaction (other than as evidence in a judicial proceeding) penalized
under the last paragraph of Article 172 are the following: (a) the
offender knew that a document was falsified by another person;

(b) the false document is embraced in Article 171 or in any of
subdivisions Nos. 1 and 2 of Article 172; (c) he used such document
(not in judicial proceedings), and (d) the use of the false document caused damage to another or at least it was used with intent
to cause such damage.
A drivers license is a public document within the purview of Articles 171 and 172. The blank form of the drivers license becomes
a public document the moment it is accomplished. In view of the
testimony of the herein witness, it would seem that all the elements are present, sufficient enough to determine the guilt of the
accused. In falsification of public documents, the rule is that if a
person had in his possession a falsified document and he made
use of it (uttered it), taking advantage of it and profiting thereby,
the presumption is that he is the material author of the falsification.
In the absence of a satisfactory explanation, one who is found in
possession of a forged document and who used or uttered the
same is presumed to be the forger. What is more, the fourth element of damage caused to another person or at least intent to
cause such damage has even become immaterial since in falsification of public or official documents, the principal thing being
punished is the violation of the public faith and the destruction of
the truth proclaimed therein. The fact that the accused manufactures spurious drivers licenses as testified by the herein witness
and as corroborated by the entrapment operation, the accused
therefore should be found guilty of the crime of Falsification of
Public Document.
Prepared by: Garry A. Gallo
Crimes Relative to Opium and Other Prohibited Drugs

Criminal Case No.:
For:

Name of Witness:

22495 and 22496

Violation of Sections 5 and 11,
Article II of RA 9165
PO2 Eugene Calumba
PCI Josephine S. Llena
PO2 Eugene Calumba has been working for Philippine National

Police since December 2009. He was part of the buy-bust operation at Zone 2, Lo-oc, Dumaguete City last September 10, 2014.
PDEA coordinated with the operation. PO2 Calumba acted as
the pusher-buyer during the buy-bust. PO2 Calumba narrated the
events while acting as pusher-buyer. After the initial exchange,
there was scuffling between Calumba and Reme Gregorio (accused). When PO2 Calumba properly restrained Gregorio, he
proceeded with pre-marking the items. He marked the sachets at
the area of arrest and the inventory was conducted at the Capitol area. During the transfer, only Calumba had possession of the
items.
There were three witnesses during the inventory: one from the
media, representative from the Department of Justice and Kagawad. The accused was also present during the inventory. The items
acquired were photographed. Then a request for examination was
forwarded to PCI Llena.
PCI Llena is a forensic chemist from the PNP Crime Laboratory (Negros Oriental) since 2000. PCI Llena received a Letter Request from
PO2 Caluba, as part of protocol, before she conducted physical
and chemical examinations of the substances inside the transparent plastic bag. Immediately, she issued a Letter Request receipt
after receiving the request from PO2 Calumba. She confirmed
that the crystalline substances were positive of methamphetamine
hydroxide or shabu.
When the prosecutor asked the witnesses to identify the marked
items, both of them were able to recognize the shabu, marked
money and other seized effects.

Section 21 of Republic Act No. 9165, as amended by Section 1
of Republic Act No. 10640 is as follows SEC. 21. Custody and Disposition of Confiscated, Seized, and/
or Surrendered Dangerous Drugs, Plant Sources of Dangerous
Drugs, Controlled Precursors and Essential Chemicals, Instruments/Paraphernalia 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 person/s from whom such items were confiscated and/or seized, or his/her representative or counsel,
with an elected public official and a representative of the
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.
x x x
(3) A certification of the forensic laboratory examination
results, which shall be done by the forensic laboratory
examiner, shall be issued immediately upon the receipt
of the subject item/s: Provided, That when the volume of
dangerous drugs, plant sources of dangerous drugs, and

controlled precursors and essential chemicals does not
allow the completion of testing within the time frame, a
partial laboratory examination report shall be provisionally
issued stating therein the quantities of dangerous drugs still
to be examined by the forensic laboratory: Provided, however, That a final certification shall be issued immediately
upon completion of the said examination and certification;
Based on the testimonies given by the officers involved, they have
followed the rules for the chain of custody. The prosecution was
able to prove that there was no contamination of the evidence;
that the items presented during the trial were the same items
found in the possession of the accused when he was apprehended; and the apprehension of the accused was fool-proof. Therefore, Reme Gregorios arrest is valid and the accused cannot use
as a defense any inadequacy within the chain of custody because there is none. In line to this, Gregorio should be found guilty
of violating Sections 5 and 1, Article II of R.A. 9165.
Prepared by: Neapolle Fleur C. Blanco
10

Criminal Case Nos.:
For:

Name of witness:
22495 and 22496

Violation of Sections 5 and 11,
Art. II, RA 9165
REME GREGORIO (Accused)
According to the accused-witness Reme Gregorio, he was just

about to go back home from buying food when he saw a transaction happening in Zone 2, Brgy. Looc, Dumaguete City. He clearly
saw that the transaction was the selling of shabu because he
was only about 2 meters away from the people transacting. Thereafter, two men whom he did not recognize approached them.
When the people around realized that it was a buy-bust operation,
they immediately scampered including the accused-witness. However, upon reaching the Billiard house near the area, he was met
by another two men who identified themselves as police officers.
There he was ordered to face backward then made him lean on
the billiard table and handcuffed his both hands in his back.
When asked what his offense is, they told him that they would just
bring him to their office for a witness testimony. However, when
they reached the office, he saw the drugs used as evidence splattered on the table then a police officer told him that if he will not
confess as to who are those people in their area who are selling
shabu, they would implant those drugs on him so that they can file
a case against him and he responded to them saying ayaw pud
ana sir, wa man ko kabalo ug kinsa. When cross-examined, the
accused-witness said said that he did not file a counter suit after
the arrest.
R.A. No. 9165: Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002.
Section 5.
Sale, Trading, Administration, Dispensation, Delivery,
Distribution and Transportation of Dangerous Drugs and/or Controlled Precursors and Essential Chemicals.
To successfully prosecute an accused for selling illegal drugs,
the prosecution has to prove:
1. The identities of the buyer and the seller, the object, and
the consideration;
2. The delivery of the thing sold and the payment for it.
11

Section 11.
Possession of Dangerous Drugs.
For an accused to be convicted of possession of illegal drugs,
the prosecution is required to prove that:
1. The accused was in possession of prohibited drug;
2. Such possession is not authorized by law;
3. The accused freely and consciously possessed the prohibited drug.

Based on the testimony of the accused-witness, there was
no showing that the above mentioned requirements to satisfy
the alleged crime of Violation of Sections 5 and 11, Art. 11 of RA
9165 are present. He merely saw that there was a transaction
happening regarding the selling of shabu upon passing by. It was
further stated that the purpose of police officers in bringing the
accused-witness to their office was so that he could testify for the
said event.
Prepared by: Alabado, Sheena Faye
12

Criminal Case No.:
For:

Name of Witness:
22495 and 22496

Violation of Sections 5 & 11,
Article II, R.A. 9165
Reme Gregorio
That on September 10, 2014 at 5 p.m., Reme Gregorio (the accused) asked money to buy a viand at a store 20 meters away
from their house located at Zone 2 Barangay Looc, Dumaguete
City. Upon walking home after purchasing the viand, the accused
saw 4 male persons transacting illegal drugs. He was about 2 meters away from them. Subsequently thereafter, two police officers
approached the group. So, the 4 men immediately ran away and
escaped. Due to fear, the accused ran away towards their house.
However, another two male persons caught him, brought him to
a nearby place, and pushed the accused against a billiard table.
There, he was beaten with a gun. He was brought to their office and
was handcuffed. Then, he was shown pockets of shabu placed on
a table. The two men told him to pinpoint anybody from their area
selling shabu. Otherwise, the shabu will be planted against him to
which the 2 male persons actually did.
Thus, the accused is facing criminal charges filed against him in
violation of Sections 5 & 11, Article II of R.A. 9165. Sec. 5, Article II of
R.A. 9165 penalizes the sale, trading, administration, dispensation,
delivery, distribution, transportation of dangerous drugs and/or
controlled precursors and essential chemicals. Sec. 11 penalizes the
possession of dangerous drugs.
Based on the testimony of the witness, the accused did not violate
Sections 5 & 11 of R.A. 9165 (The Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs
Act of 2002. The accused is neither involved in the selling of dangerous drugs nor caught in flagrante delicto in possession of dangerous drugs during his arrest on September 10, 2014. Furthermore, the
pockets of shabu were only planted against the accused due to his
inability to pinpoint who are guilty of selling shabu in their area.
Prepared by: Salesheil M. Du
13

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES v. JONAS QUISEL DAGOHOY
Criminal Case No.:
For:

Name of witness:
225201
Violations of Sections 5 and11,
Roxane Pahayahay
Roxane Pahayay, a counselor of Barangay Calindagan, Dumaguete City, testified that she was a witness to the physical inventory of the seized and confiscated items during the arrest of the
accused. She testified that she was called by the police for the
inventory. The accused and the apprehending officers were present at such inventory where all the items confiscated from the accused were laid out on a table. During her testimony, she identified
her signature in the document of the inventory. Such document
was signed by her at Purok St. John, Calindagan, Dumaguete
City where accused was arrested. Through the photos presented
as evidence, the witness also identified her presence during the
inventory and the items in such photos.
Sec. 5, Article II of RA 9165 penalizes the sale, trading, administration, dispensation, delivery, distribution and transportation of dangerous drugs and/or controlled precursors and essential chemicals.
Section 11, Article II of RA 9165 penalizes the possession of illegal
drugs. In connection with these, any arrest made should conform
to the requisites set forth in Section 21, Art. II of RA 9165 which is the
custody and disposition of confiscated, seized and/or surrendered
dangerous drugs, plant sources of dangerous drugs, controlled
precursors and essential chemicals, instruments paraphernalia
and/or laboratory equipment. Paragraph 1 Section 21, Art. II of RA
9165 requires that the inventory be made in the presence of: 1) the
accused or the persons from whom such items were confiscated
and/or seized or his/her representative or counsel, 2) an elected
public official and, 3) a representative of the National Prosecution
Service or the media. The aforementioned people are also required to sign copies of the inventory.
The testimony was adequate in proving that the witness was an
elected public official of the area, that she was present during the
14

physical inventory, and that she signed the inventory. This testimony fulfilled the requirement as prescribed by Sec 21 (1), Article II of
RA 9165 which requires that an elected public official be present
during the inventory and that such official sign the inventory and
be furnished with copies thereof. The cross-examination of the
defense was weak since it only established that she had no knowledge of the arrest and where the items in the inventory came
from. Such knowledge is not required by the law.
Prepared by: June Antonette C. Lacpao
15

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES vs. MARLON CORTES
Criminal Case Nos.:
For:

Name of witness:
22490 and 22491

Violation of Sections 5 and11,
PO1 Hans Christian Baguio
Upon information that Marlon was selling shabu, PO1 Baguio went to Marlons house, posing as a buyer. After he gave Marlon the marked money,
Marlontook sachets of a white crystalline substance from his pocket and
gave him one. He then examined it. When he was sure it was shabu, he
seized Marlon. Marlon tried to escape, but PO1 Baguio subdued him. Marlon had 7 other sachets in his pocket. During the trial, PO1 Baguio pointed
to Marlon as the one who sold and possessed illegal drugs.
Selling and illegal possession of dangerous drugs as defined in Section 5
and 11 of RA 9165, carries the following elements, respectively:
In selling prohibited drugs: 1)The identities of the buyer and the seller, the
object and the consideration, 2) the delivery of the thing sold and the
payment for it.
In illegal possession: 1)the accused was in possession of the prohibited
drug, 2)such possession is unauthorized by law and 3) the accused freely
and consciously possessed the prohibited drug.
All the elements of both the sale and illegal possession of prohibited drugs
were appreciated in the testimony of PO1 Baguio. In selling, Marlon as the
seller and PO1 Baguio as the buyer were identified. The object was shabu
and the consideration was the marked money. Marlon also delivered
one sachet to him. In illegal possession, Marlon had 7 other sachets in his
pocket and had no authority to possess them. It is also evident that he
freely and consciously possessed them since he was engaged in selling
and because he tried to escape when PO1 Baguio seized him.
NOTE: This was a valid warrantless arrest under Section 5 Rule 113 of the
Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure for being caught in flagrante delicto.
Prepared by: Christal Faith F. Javier
16

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES v. MARRY BLISS BURLASA
Criminal Case No.:
For:
Name of witness:
2014-22384
Violation of Section 5, Article II of RA 9165
PCI Josephine S. Llena
PCI Josephine S. Llena, the forensic chemist of the PNP Crime Laboratory, was the first witness called by the prosecution. The witness
was not called to the witness stand in view of the agreement by
the prosecution and defense to stipulate on her testimonies. That
on July 28,2014 she received the specimen subject of this case
from PO1 William Vera Cruz, who is the arresting officer of the buy
bust operation. After, the receipt of such specimen, she conducted a laboratory examination and once finished she resealed the
same and made her own markings and placed it inside the vault
in her office where she has the only access. She submitted the
said specimen to the court and marked as Exhibit C. Also, that if
the witness will be presented the specimen will be presented; she
will be able to identify the same specimen she received from PO1
William Vera Cruz with the marking and signature.
Section 5. Sale, Trading, Administration, Dispensation, Delivery, Distribution and Transportation of Dangerous Drugs and/or Controlled
Precursors and Essential Chemicals. - The penalty of life imprisonment to death and a fine ranging from Five hundred thousand
pesos (P500,000.00) to Ten million pesos (P10,000,000.00) shall be
imposed upon any person, who, unless authorized by law, shall sell,
trade, administer, dispense, deliver, give away to another, distribute dispatch in transit or transport any dangerous drug, including
any and all species of opium poppy regardless of the quantity and
purity involved, or shall act as a broker in any of such transactions.
In relation to:
Sec 21 (3) Article II of RA 9165 amended by RA10640
(3) A certification of the forensic laboratory examination results,
which shall be done by the forensic laboratory examiner, shall be
issued immediately upon the receipt of the subject item/s: Provided, That when the volume of dangerous drugs, plant
17

sources of dangerous drugs, and controlled precursors and essential chemicals does not allow the completion of testing within the
time frame, a partial laboratory examination report shall be provisionally issued stating therein the quantities of dangerous drugs
still to be examined by the forensic laboratory: Provided, however,
That a final certification shall be issued immediately upon completion of the said examination and certification;
The prosecutions testimony is comprehensive and proves that
the forensic chemist conducted the laboratory examination upon
receipt of the specimen and made the necessary markings to validate the said specimen. After the examination, the witness made
her own markings and placed the evidence in the vault where she
has the only access, which would strongly imply that no other person could touch the said evidence and the witness submitted such
evidence directly to the honorable court. The prosecution must
show through the witness that the evidence has no chance of being compromised during the laboratory examination. The witness
followed Sec. 21 (3) article II of RA 9165 as amended by RA 10640
in which she immediately conducted the laboratory examination.
Prepared By: Krizza Mae L. Batulan
18

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES v. CHRISTAZALYN ZUNIEGA
Criminal Case No.:
For:
Witness:
22512
Violation of Section 5, Article II RA 9165
PO1 Irene Tumarong
Police officer Tumarong testified she was the backup officer and
photographer during the buy bust operation conducted at Looc
Zone 4 last October 2 2014. At 8am that morning Tumarong observed Officer Los Banos with the confidential informant talking
to Gaga the accused. At 5:15pm later they conducted their
briefing and at 6:22pm Tumarong, along with her fellow officers, arrived at the site. She was 10 meters away from Los Banos who was
conducting the transaction with Gaga. As there was already
a commotion from the people around them, just as Los Banos
grasped the accuseds hand Tumarong shouted Chief! and she,
along with her team made the arrest. Los Banos marked the seized
drugs and money while Tumarong maintained distance, with the
accused in her custody, from the marking. When in the office,
Tumarong took photos of the evidence with her smartphone and
identified them as they were presented in court. She claimed she
was unable to hear any conversation during the transaction and
could only observe their gestures from a distance with difficulty as
it was already dark. Tumarong admitted she did not make sure the
accused fully observed the marking and photographing of the
drug and money seized.
RA 9165 Article II: Section 5 who, unless authorized by law,
shall sell, trade, administer, dispense, deliver, give away to another, distribute dispatch in transit or transport any dangerous drug,
including any and all species of opium poppy regardless of the
quantity and purity involved, or shall act as a broker in any of such
transactions..
Buy-bust operations are carefully conducted to catch an accused
red handed. The elements of the sale and transaction were unclear in this testimony as the sale was not proven consummated
based on the facts presented. No conversation was heard, and
the accuseds actions were unclear because of the darkness and
19

distance. Further corroboration with Los Banos would be needed,
as the drugs would have to be presented along with acceptance
of the money for the arrest to be valid and unquestionable. It
should be noted however, that the marking and photographing
of the drugs was not made in the presence of the accused or her
counsel, one of the requirements of Section 21 of RA 9165.
Prepared by: Angel Paolo B. Villahermosa
20

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES v. ARCHER TRUPA and ANILOU TRUPA
Criminal Case No.:
For:
Name of witness:
20838
Violation of Section 5, Article II of RA 9165
P.O. Bordejo
P.O. Bordejo, interrogated by Pros. Cortes-Garces, provided for the

following information upon recollection of the buy-bust operation
for shabu which transpired on the morning of October 25, 2011:
that upon receiving reports from the polices informant, he immediately informed and coordinated with NBI and Atty. Cimafranca,
and proceeded to the Loto Outlet in Looc where Archur and
Anilou were seen talking to each other from his location 5-7meters
away; that said accused were in the act of exchanging sachet/s;
that Bordejo approached Anilou to buy P500 worth of shabu
after Archur left, and when Anilou handed over the sachet, he
immediately arrested her and went after Archur, who was likewise
successfully arrested; that both were duly informed of their constitutional rights; that he was asked to depart from the scene after
confiscating the sachets so as to be able to pose as buyer for another by-bust operation, and avoid being familiarized; and lastly,
that the markings were not done by him.
Sec. 5, Art. II of RA 9165 punishes any person who shall sell, trade,
administer, dispense, deliver, give away to another, distribute,
dispatch in transit or transport any dangerous drug, including any
and all species of opium poppy regardless of quantity and purity
involved, or controlled precursor and essential element, or shall act
as broker in any transaction.
Bordejos arrest of the accused was well within the meaning of
the punishable acts presented under Sec. 5. It is vital to remember
that the by-bust operation was done lawfully and in the regular
manner. Reyes mentions that arrests without a warrant are lawful
in three ways, two of them are relevant to this case: one, when
a person is in inflagrante delicto, and two, when there is probable cause to believe based on personal knowledge of facts that
the person committed such offense. Contrary to the allegation
of the defense that Archer was just standing hence there was
21

no crime at that time, Bordejos had probable cause to arrest
both individuals, backed up by the information sent to him by an
authorized, reliable informant. The previous and subsequent acts/
conduct of both, clearly witnessed by him, can be considered as
prima facie evidence in ascertaining their direct involvement to
the crime. Although 5-7meters may be far enough to say the sachets contained shabu, as mentioned by the defense, the fact of
the matter is that the confiscated sachets were proven to contain
the same.
In People v Le and Castillo (GR No 188976), the ruling of the SC
included that the essential elements for prosecution of the sale
of shabu are: 1) identity of buyer and seller, the object of sale
and consideration; 2) delivery of thing sold and payment therefor. What is material is proof that the transaction actually took
place, along with presentation of the corpus delicti of the crime.
Although Bordejos was not the one who marked the sachets (as
revealed during the cross-examination) in pursuance of Sec. 21
Chain of Custody in by-bust ops, the Court in the mentioned
case ruled: Non-compliance with Sec. 21 does not render an
accuseds arrest illegal or the items seized/confiscated from him
inadmissible. The requirements of 9165 and its IRR are not inflexible.
What is essential is the preservation of the integrity and the evidentiary value of the seized items, as the same will be utilized in the
determination of the guilt or innocence of the accused. Bordejos
was still able to identify the sachets correctly and properly when
asked by the Court.
The interrogation of the witness by the prosecution contained
questions that are not incriminating. The queries led the witness to
tell the story himself. This court observation provided for a good
introduction to litigation to give a taste of what its like. I have
recognized and acknowledged once more the weight placed on
the shoulders of lawyers, for truly, the fate of an innocent or guilty
person lies on his/her argumentation presented before the Judge.
Here exists a lawyer and a witness faithful to their roles in society.
Such is a depiction of a good justice system.
Prepared by: Megan Alexandra H. Cariaso
22

PEOPLE vs. KHETZEL M. MINAO
CRIMINAL CASE NO.: 2134
FOR:
Violation of Sec. 5, Art. II, RA 9165
NAME OF WITNESS: Katherine Dela Cruz (Negros Oriental Provincial Police Office)
According to the witness, they received information that the accused sells illegal drugs. Thereafter, they conducted a test buy in
which their confidential agent was able to purchase shabu from
the accused. Subsequently, a buy bust operation was conducted;
wherein, the confidential agent contacted the accused that he
knows someone (poseur-buyer) who wants to buy the said illegal
drug. The two agreed to meet at a public place and at about
eight oclock in the evening. During the operation, the witness and
a co-operative, Errol Torres, acted as lovers in the vicinity, to serve
as look out and back up. At a distance of 50 meters, the witness
insists that she positively saw the accused hand the poseur-buyer with one sachet of shabu because the latter was standing
in a lighted area. However, upon cross examination, the witness
only presumes that what was handed was shabu because that
was the purpose of the entire operation. Also, the counsel of the
accused questioned the inconsistency of the evidence for it did
not state the particular subject of the briefing conducted nor was
there a label of the suspected subject, and place and time of the
operation.
Section 5, Article II of RA 9165 expressly prohibits the sale, trading,
administration, dispensation, delivery, distribution and transportation of dangerous drugs and/or controlled precursors and essential
chemicals. It also lays down the penalties attached thereto.
The testimony of the witness holds no merit based on the following:
a) it is impossible to accurately conclude, from a distance of 50
meters and at night time, that what was handed was one sachet
of shabu. It could have been any material thing analogous to a
sachet of shabu; and, b) the witness did not see for herself that the
item handed was in fact shabu, but only presumed that it was the
same because it was the purpose of the entire operation. Further-
23

more, there were irregularities in the operation itself, as the police
failed to label and document the seized dangerous drug and the
briefing of the entire operation.
Prepared by: Ruth Risma
24

PEPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES v. ANGELO BASONA y TORRES
Criminal Case Nos.:
For:

Name of Witness:
20555 & 20556

Violation of Section 5 & 11,
Art. II of RA 9165
Police Officer 1 Querubbin
After an information and briefing by the head of PNP Dumaguete,

PNP personnel of Dumaguete City led by PO1 Querubbin conducted a buy bust operation on illegal drugs in the afternoon of
June 23, 2011 at the Cadawinonan Housing Project, Cadawinon,
Dumaguete City that resulted to the apprehension of the suspect
Angelo Basona y Torres, 34 years old, single, laborer, native and
resident of Cadawinonan, Dumaguete City who is caught while
on the act of selling one (1) small heat sealed transparent plastic
sachet with suspected methamphetamine hydrochloride inside
to our poser buyer in exchange to our marked money one piece
of five hundred peso bill with serial number and during the preventive search suspect was also in custody and control of another
one (1) piece of small heat sealed transparent plastic sachet with
suspected illegal drugs inside placed inside a marker (pentelpen)
tube. An inventory of the seized items was conducted and photographs were taken and served as evidence in the case. Arrested
suspect during his arrest was informed of his constitutional rights
and then brought to the local jail for custodial investigation. Arrested suspect including the confiscated evidence was forwarded at
the PNP crime laboratory for drug test and laboratory examination.
The suspect is now detained.
Violation of Sections 5 & 11, Art. II of RA 9165
COMPREHENSIVE DANGEROUS DRUGS ACT OF 2002
Article II, Section 5
Sale, Trading, Administration, Dispensation, Delivery, Distribution
and Transportation of Dangerous Drugs and/or Controlled Precursors and Essential Chemicals
Case: Illegal Sale
25

The penalty of life imprisonment to death and a fine ranging
from Five hundred thousand pesos (P500,000.00) to Ten million
pesos (P10,000,000.00) shall be imposed upon any person, who,
unless authorized by law, shall sell, trade, administer, dispense,
deliver, give away to another, distribute, dispatch in transit or
transport any dangerous drug, including any and all species of
opium poppy regardless of the quantity and purity involved, or
shall act as a broker in any of such transactions.
Article II, Section 11
Possession of Dangerous Drugs
The penalty of life imprisonment to death and a fine ranging from
Five hundred thousand pesos (P500,000.00) to Ten million pesos
(P10,000,000.00) shall be imposed upon any person, who, unless
authorized by law, shall possess any dangerous drug in the following quantities, regardless of the degree of purity thereof:
1) 10 grams or more of opium;
2) 10 grams or more of morphine;
3) 10 grams or more of heroin;
4) 10 grams or more of cocaine or cocaine hydrochloride;
5) 50 grams or more of methamphetamine hydrochloride or
shabu;
6) 10 grams or more of marijuana resin or marijuana resin oil;
7) 500 grams or more of marijuana;
8) 10 grams or more of other dangerous drugs such as, but
not limited to, methylenedioxymethamphetamine (MDMA) or
ecstasy, paramethoxyamphetamine (PMA), trimethoxyamphetamine (TMA), lysergic acid diethylamine (LSD), gamma
hydroxybutyrate (GHB), and those similarly designed or newly introduced drugs and their derivatives, without having any therapeutic value or if the quantity possessed is far beyond therapeutic requirements, as determined and promulgated by the Board
in accordance to Section 93, Article XI of this Act. Otherwise, if
the quantity involved is less than the foregoing quantities, the
penalties shall be graduated as follows:
1) Life imprisonment and a fine ranging from Four hundred
26

thousand pesos (P400,000.00) to Five hundred thousand pesos
(P500,000.00), if the quantity of methamphetamine hydrochloride or shabu is ten (10) grams or more but less than fifty (50)
grams;
2) Imprisonment of twenty (20) years and one (1) day to life
imprisonment and a fine ranging from Four hundred thousand pesos (P400,000.00) to Five hundred thousand pesos
(P500,000.00), if the quantities of dangerous drugs are five (5)
grams or more but less than ten (10) grams of opium, morphine, heroin, cocaine or cocaine hydrochloride, marijuana
resin or marijuana resin oil, methamphetamine hydrochloride
or shabu, or other dangerous drugs such as, but not limited to, MDMA or ecstasy, PMA, TMA, LSD, GHB, and those
similarly designed or newly introduced drugs and their derivatives, without having any therapeutic value or if the quantity
possessed is far beyond therapeutic requirements; or three
hundred (300) grams or more but less than five hundred (500)
grams of marijuana;
3) Imprisonment of twelve (12) years and one (1) day to
twenty (20) years and a fine ranging from Three hundred
thousand pesos (P300,000.00) to Four hundred thousand pesos
(P400,000.00), if the quantities of dangerous drugs are less
than five (5) grams of opium, morphine, heroin, cocaine or
cocaine hydrochloride, marijuana resin or marijuana resin oil,
methamphetamine hydrochloride or shabu, or other dangerous drugs such as, but not limited to, MDMA or ecstasy,
PMA, TMA, LSD, GHB, and those similarly designed or newly
introduced drugs and their derivatives, without having any
therapeutic value or if the quantity possessed is far beyond
therapeutic requirements; or less than three hundred (300)
grams of marijuana.
27

Elements of Section 5 (Illegal Sale), Art. II of RA 9165

Identification of the buyer and the seller, the object, and
the consideration

Delivery of the thing sold and the payment thereof. (What
is material in a prosecution for illegal sale of dangerous drugs
is the proof that the transaction or sale actually took place,
coupled with the presentation in court of the corpus delicti or
the illicit drug in evidence and the commission of the offense of
illegal sale of dangerous drugs x x x merely requires the consummation of the selling transaction, which happens the moment
the exchange of money and drugs between the buyer and the
seller takes place)
Elements of Section 11 (Possession of Dangerous Drugs), Article II of
RA 9165

An item or object identified to be a dangerous drug was in
a persons possession

The possession was not authorized by law

The person freely and consciously possessed the dangerous
drug.
On Section 5, Article II of RA 9165
The testimony of PO1 Querubbin revealed that an entrapment
operation was organized and conducted after they confirmed
through a surveillance operation the information that appellant
is engaged in drug peddling activities. Prosecutions for illegal
drugs depend largely on the credibility of the police officers who
conducted the buy-bust operation. Their narration of the incident, buttressed by the presumption that they have regularly
performed their duties in the absence of convincing proof to the
contrary, must be given weight.
The evidence adduced by the prosecution established beyond
reasonable doubt the guilt of the accused for the crime of illegal
selling of dangerous drugs. Impressive appellants claim of extortion by the police officers must be dismissed and instead the buybust operation which was found to have been carried out with
28

due regard to constitutional and legal safeguards must be upheld.
There is absence of proof of evil motive on the part of the police,
the presumption of regularity which runs in their favor stands. Chain
of custody was clearly established since PO1 Querubbin clearly
testified the events that transpired during the buy bust operation,
he identified the seized shabu, how they were confiscated, the
manner of arrest, and substantiated his claim that the one five
hundred peso bill marked as evidence was the same marked
money used in the buy bust operation. In the testimony of PO1
Querubbin, he positively identified the suspect, Angelo Basona y
Torres as the seller of shabu. There is also a positive showing that
the police officers who conducted the buy bust operation did an
inventory of the seized items and took photographs of such in the
presence of the accused and the police officers who conducted
the buy bust operation as per Section 21 of RA 9165. PO1 Querubbin also recalled the markings on the specimen and this shows that
he was not coached in his testimony as a witness. Also, the accused was properly served with his constitutional rights during the
custodial investigation. Therefore, as an assessment to this case,
the accused must be declared guilty beyond reasonable doubt of
the crime of illegal selling of dangerous drugs.
On Section 11, Article II of RA 9165

Through the testimony of PO1 Querubbin, the prosecution
was able to establish the concurrence of all the elements of possession of dangerous drugs: (a) an item or object identified to be
a dangerous drug was in a persons possession; (b) the possession
was not authorized by law; and (c) the person freely and consciously possessed the dangerous drug. There is no finding of evil
motive on the part of the police officers to testify falsely against
the accused. In illegal drugs cases, the identity and integrity of
the drugs seized must be established with the same unwavering
exactitude as that required to arrive at a finding of guilt. The case
against the accused hinges on the ability of the prosecution to
prove that the illegal drug presented in court is the same one that
was recovered from the accused upon his arrest. The procedure
set forth in Section 21 of R.A. 9165 is intended precisely to ensure
the identity and integrity of dangerous drugs seized. This provision
29

requires that upon seizure of illegal drug items, the apprehending
team having initial custody of the drugs shall (a) conduct a physical inventory of the drugs and (b) take photographs thereof (c)
in the presence of the person from whom these items were seized
or confiscated and (d) a representative from the media and the
Department of Justice and any elected public official (e) who shall
all be required to sign the inventory and be given copies thereof.
In this case, Section 21 was observed by the apprehending officers
and therefore, the accused should be declared guilty beyond
reasonable doubt of the crime of possession of dangerous drugs.
Prepared by: Krizea Marie K. Duron
30

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES v. VHILISIKE DURAN y RATUNIL
Criminal Case No.:
For:
Name of witness:
21973 & 21974

Violation of Sec. 5 & 11 of Art. II of RA. 9165
PO2 Merwin Anfone
Section 5, Article II of RA 9165 prohibits the Sale, Trading, Administration,

Dispensation, Delivery, Distribution and Transportation of Dangerous Drugs
and/or Controlled Precursors and Essential Chemicals; While Section 11,
Article II of RA 9165 prohibits the Possession of Dangerous Drugs. According
to the witness testimony, after conducting a test buy by a confidential
asset and confirming that the accused Vhilisike is selling and possessing
illegal drugs last September 16, 2013 at around 11:25 p.m. near a KTV Bar
in Bacong, Negros Oriental. He together with his partner PO1 Partosa,
went back to their police station and secured from their Police Senior Inspector Tolentino, permission to conduct a buy-bust operation against the
accused. Their P/S Insp. approved their request and gave them 500 pesos
to be their marked money for the operation. After securing the money
and all other things required for the operation, he and his partner went to
the KTV Bar at around 11: 55 p.m. and there outside the bar, the accused
upon seeing them coming near him, went and ask them if they were to
buy illegal drugs from him by saying bai crocks mo bai. The witness then
bought from the accused a sachet of illegal drugs and paid with the
marked bill. After the transaction, he immediately captures the suspect
and brought him inside the bar. His partner then frisked the suspect and
recovered from the right side front pocket of the accused shirt another
sachet of illegal drugs. They then asked some local politicians to do the
confirmation and inventory of evidences and arrested the suspect and
told him his Miranda rights. Custody of the evidence against the accused
remained with the witness and was successfully established that they were
not tampered with during the cross examination of the witness at the trial.
Based on the testimony of the witness, the accused really sold and possessed illegal drugs last September 16, 2013 violating section 5 and 11 of
article II of RA 9165 otherwise known as THE COMPREHENSIVE DANGEROUS DRUGS ACT of 2002.
Prepared by: Ben Joseph Benedian
31

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES v. CHRISTZALYN ZUNIEGA
Criminal Case No.:
For:
Name of witness:
22512
Violation of Sec. 5, Article II, RA 9165
SPO1 Irene Tumarong
Police officer Tumarong was designated as back up for police

officer Los Banos. The latter acted as poser-buyer and was also the
arresting officer for the buy-bust operation for one alias Gaga.
During the surveillance, Tumarong saw the accused conversing
with Los Banos and their confidential informant. She was about ten
meters from where they stood. The accused was later identified
by Los Banos as Gaga, the subject of their operation. On the
day of entrapment, at about 6 oclock in the afternoon, Tumarong maintained a distance of ten meters from where Los Banos
was transacting with the accused. When Tumarong saw Los Banos
grab the hand of the accused, panic broke out and she shouted
Chief! to signal the rest of the team to close in and perform the
arrest. During the arrest, she was ordered to secure the accused
at a distance of about two to three meters while Los Banos proceeded with marking the sachets of shabu and other items used
during the transaction. This was done in plain view of the accused,
in the area where the arrest was performed. After marking the
items, they proceeded to the police station to do the inventory in
the presence of the accused and other witnesses in compliance
with the requirements of law. During the inventory, Tumarong also
served as the photographer. She took photos of the confiscated
items using her cellphone.
In the prosecution for the crime of illegal sale of prohibited drugs
under Sec. 5, Art. II of RA 9165, the following elements must concur:
(1) the identities of the buyer and seller, object, and consideration;
and (2) the delivery of the thing sold and the payment for it. What
is material to the prosecution for illegal sale of dangerous drugs is
the proof that the transaction or sale actually occurred, coupled
with the presentation in court of the substance seized as evidence.
In the instant case, the testimony of police officer Tumarong alone
could not establish the elements of the crime. Her testimony must
32

be taken simply as corroborative of the testimony given by the
arresting officer Los Banos. During cross-examination, she said that
she wasnt proximate enough to conclusively establish the delivery of the thing sold and the payment for it when the transaction
occurred between the accused and the poser-buyer. The cover
of darkness also made it difficult for her to see the actual transaction. Her testimony is, however, valuable to establish that the items
confiscated from the transaction were secured and documented
according to the requirements of law.
Prepared by: Wiem Marie M. Bonganciso
33

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES v. ROGER HEMOYA Y BINIGAY ET AL
Criminal Case No.:
For:
Name of witness:
2015-23172
Murder, Art. 248 of Revised Penal Code
Nicanor Ernesto Tagle
The witness relayed that on February 9 Nardo fired a shot but the
bullet hit a stone so Roger and his wife proceeded to the police
station for blotter but was advised to go to the barangay captain.
And that on February 10 to 11 Joseph the son of Nardo, noticed
that they were being watched from their house.

Murder is the unlawful killing of any person which is not parricide or
infanticide, provided that any of the circumstances mentioned in
Article 248 is present.

In this case, it is evident that there was premeditation which is one
of the qualifying circumstances of Murder. The victim was being
watched from their house from February 10 to 11 as witnessed by
the son of the victim. And the elements of premeditation qualifying
it to murder are 1) the time the offender determined to kill his victim; 2) an act of the offender manifestly indicating that he clung to
his determination to kill his victim; and 3) a sufficient lapse of time
between the determination and the execution of the killing.
Prepared by: Tonirose L. Banquerigo
34

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES v. ROGER HEMOYA Y BINIGAY, ET. AL
Criminal Case No.: 2015-23172
For:
Murder, Art. 248 of Revised Penal Code
Name of witness:
Dr. Delia Futalan (Municipal Health Officer,
Siaton, Negros Oriental)
As the physician who conducted the post mortem examination
of the victim, her testimony was confined to determining whether
or not the death was caused by a gunshot wound, as alleged by
the prosecution. Dr. Futalan found several wounds on the victims
body: (1) lacerated forehead caused by a blunt object; (2) avulsion of left forearm; and (3) comminuted fracture at the back of
the head caused by a gunshot wound. Dr. Futalans conclusion
was that the victim was shot from a very short distance because
the damage.
Murder as a crime penalized under Article 248 of the Revised Penal
Code, is defined as the unlawful killing of any person which is not
parricide or infanticide, provided that any of the qualifying circumstances enumerated under Article 248 is present. The elements
of murder are as follows: (1) that a person was killed; (2) that the
accused killed him; (3) that the killing was attended by any of the
qualifying circumstances mentioned in Article 248; and (4) that the
killing is not parricide or infanticide.
The testimony is adequate to prove that a person was killed. It
cannot prove that the killing was committed by the accused. The
testimony can also prove that the killing was attended by treachery, one of the qualifying circumstances of murder. If the killer was
at the back of the victim at the time of the shooting as indicated
by the location of the gunshot wound, then treachery would be
attendant in the case.
Prepared by: Julius Anthony Ragay
35

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES v. ARWIN ABELLA y MAYANO
Criminal Case Nos.:
For:

Name of witness:

21766 & 21767

Frustrated Murder and Homicde
Arts. 248 and 249 of Revised Penal Code
Mr. Diomel S. Yap
(Victim of Frustrated Murder)
(Witness to the Homicide)
At about 3:00 oclock in the afternoon of December 6, 2012, Diomel Yap was at the Siaton Cockpit to bet (3) of his fighting cocks.
He was with his cousin, brother-in-law, and helper that day. Having
lost in the cock fighting, Yap went outside the arena and that was
when Arwin Abella (accused) suddenly shot him, who was one (1)
arms-length away from him. The accused allegedly got the firearm, which was contained inside a clutch bag, handed over by
his son Dodong. The second gunshot hit Mr. Rey Sumagaysay, who
was beside the witness that time, after Rey cautioned the accused
not to shoot Yap. Both Sumagaysay and Yap were brought to the
Holy Child Hospital. Sumagaysay died thereafter.
A felony is frustrated when the offender performs all the acts of
execution which should produce the felony as a consequence,
but which, nevertheless, do not produce it by reason of causes
independent of the will of the perpetrator.
36
Murder (ART 248)

1. That a person was killed
2. That the accused killed him
3. That the killing was attended by any of the qualifying circumstances mentioned in Article 248 (TREACHERY FOR THIS
CASE)
4. The killing is not parricide or infanticide
Homicide (ART 249)

1. That a person is killed
2. That the accused killed him without any justifying circumstances
3. That the accused had the intention to kill, which is pre-

sumed
4. That the killing was not attended by any of the qualifying
circumstances of murder, or by that of parricide or infanticide
The first felony committed was that in frustrated stage because the
accused has performed all the acts of execution necessary to produce the felony, but the crime is not produced by reason of causes independent of the will of the accused. The victim, Mr. Diomel
Yap survived from the incident after being shot and brought to the
hospital, which was a cause independent of the perpetrators will.
Hence, the first crime committed is Frustrated Murder. The crime of
Murder exists even when only one of the circumstances described
in Art. 248 is present. In this case, treachery qualified the crime of
murder when the shooting was sudden and unexpected and the
victim was not in the position to defend himself. Based on the testimony of the witness, he was unprepared of the attack made by
the accused as it happened suddenly after he came out from the
cockpit. Further, the second crime committed by herein accused
is homicide. Clearly, the killing of Rey Sumagaysay was not justified
and was also not attended by any of the qualifying circumstances
of murder. Rey was merely trying to stop the accused from shooting Yap but he was likewise hit. Therefore, having established the
elements of the two crimes, the accused ARWIN ABELLA y MAYANO should be held guilty of the offense of FRUSTRATED MURDER
and HOMICIDE beyond reasonable doubt.
Prepared by: Frances Ann A. Teves
37

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES v. ANDRES L. TUBAT
Criminal Case No.: 21714
For:
Frustrated Homicide, Art. 249 of
Revised Penal Code
Name of witness:
Andres L. Tubat (Accused)
While walking home, Andres saw his brother Agustin (Victim) drinking with 2 others. Andres was 4 meters away from his house when
he was allegedly attacked by Agustin with a bolo. He was able to
block the attack but allegedly sustained injuries on his left hand.
Agustin, on the other hand, sustained injuries on his chest/neck
[accused gestured from neck to below the clavicle].
Article 249 of the RPC provides the following elements from Homicide: (1) that a person was killed; (2) that the accused killed him
without justifying circumstance; (3) that accused had intention to
kill, which is presumed; (4) that the killing was not attended by any
qualifying circumstance of murder, parricide or infanticide.
Article 11 of the RPC provides that for the justifying circumstance
of self-defense to be appreciated, the following must concur: (1)
unlawful aggression; (2) reasonable necessity of the means employed to prevent or repel it; (3) lack of sufficient provocation on
part of the person defending himself.
Andres did not kill Agustin but had inflicted mortal wounds on the
latter; thus, Andres is charged only with Frustrated Homicide.
It was not mentioned in trial, but it appears that Andres is invoking the justifying circumstance of self-defense. If appreciated, he
would not be criminally liable. In order to justify (frustrated) homicide, it is essential that the killing be made simultaneous to the
attack made, without time for deliberate and cool thinking. That
being said, it appears that the requisites of self-defense are present. However, Andres failed to present any evidence to substantiate his claim. That is to say, the accused has the burden to prove
the justifying circumstance to the satisfaction of the court. In the
38

present case, Andres did not submit a medical certificate or any
witness to support his claim that Agustin suddenly attacked him. It
is based purely on his testimony. Hence, the justifying circumstance
of self-defense cannot be appreciated in this case.
Prepared by: Stella Lyn C. Amistad
39

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES v ELEAZAR BABOR Y AMORGANDA
Criminal Case No.:
For:
Name of Witness:
09-001
Homicide, Art. 249 of Revised Penal Code
Solomon Leong, Jr.
Solomon Leong, Jr. and Joel Leong were the former employees
of the accused Eleazar Babor. Solomon was a truck driver and
Joel is a mechanic. On the afternoon of August 19, 2015, while
walking their way home, they encounter Eleazar Babor along
the way. Babor asked what is inside the sack. Solomon answered
that it is his tools. Babor requested Solomon to lay the tools on the
ground. After that, Babor found that his socket wrench was found
on Solomon Leongs sack. While the brothers were looking at the
tools, Babor grabbed a knife and stabbed Joel Leong on his chest
two times. After that, Babor also inflicted wounds on Solomons left
hand. Solomon ran towards the Bindoy Police Station. He wasnt
able to reach the police station, instead, he come across a tricycle driver and asked for help. Both of them were brought to the
hospital.

Art. 249. Homicide- Any person who, not falling within th provisions
of article 246, shall kill another without the attending circumstances enumerated in the next preceding article, shall be deemed
guilty of homicide and be punished by reclusion temporal.

All the elements of homicide mentioned in Article 249 in the Revised Penal Code are present in the testimony given by the prosecution witness.
Prepared by: Dominic Benjamin Lajot
40

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES v. ELEAZAR BABOR y AMORGANDA
Criminal Case No.:
For:
Name of witness:
09-0001-BY
Homicide, Art. 249 of Revised Penal Code
Solomon Leong, Jr.
Mr. Leong was the driver of the accused up until 2008. He witnessed his brother, Joel Leong (victim), being stabbed twice with
a knife and die. Then, the accused turned on him and injured him,
prompting Solomon to run to the police station. He and his brother
where then taken to a hospital for examination.
Homicide under Art. 249 of the RPC has the following elements:
1. That a person was killed;
2. That the accused killed him without any justifying circumstances;
3. That the accused had the intention to kill, which is presumed;
4. That the killing was not attended by any of the qualifying
circumstances of murder, or by that of parricide or infanticide.
Solomon Leongs testimony has proven all four elements of the
crime of Homicide under Art. 249 of the RPC. He saw Eleazar Babor
stab his brother and his brother eventually died. There were no justifying circumstances present. The intention to kill is presumed and
is evident in the place nd frequency of the stabbing. Finally, none
of the circumstances that could qualify the crime into murder,
parricide or infanticide were present in this case.
Prepared by: Hyrl Aedrian C. Lim
41

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES v. EMERIO
Criminal Case No.:
For:
Name of witness:
2016-234700
Rape, Art. 266-A of Revised Penal Code
Emerita Kitane
Ms. Credo was the house-helper of the accused. One afternoon, when
the accused went home from work, the witness saw the accused hurriedly went inside his house. The witness which is their neighbor, heard some
awkward noises. With curiosity, she went near the wall of the accuseds
house and heard the victims voice repeatedly shouting ayaw. It was
then discovered that the accused being the employer of the victim,
through force, threat intimidation as well as abuse of authority did then
and there willfully, unlawfully and feloniously have carnal knowledge of
the said house-helper against her will.

Article 266-A. Rape, When and how committed. -Rape is committed:
1) By a man who shall have carnal knowledge of a woman under
any of the following circumstances:
a) Through force, threat or intimidation;
b) When the offended party is deprived of reason or is otherwise
unconscious,
c) By means of fraudulent machination or grave abuse of authority;
d) When the offended party is under twelve (12) years of age or is
demented, even though none of the circumstances mentioned
above be present;
2) By any person who, under any of the circumstances mentioned in
paragraph 1 hereof, shall commit an act of sexual assault by inserting his penis into another persons mouth or anal orifice, or any instrument or object, into the genital or anal orifice of another person.

The elements of rape specifically force, threat and intimidation as well as
grave abuse of authority, the accused being the employer of the victim,
mentioned in Article 266-A in the Revised Penal Code are present in the
testimony given by the prosecution witness.
Prepared by: Jerome T. Arado
42

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES v. XXX (CICL)
Criminal Case No.:
For:
Name of witness:
2015-23291
RAPE, Art. 266-A of Revised Penal Code
NONE
This is the third time that the Prosecution failed to present its evidence
due to the failure of the Private Complainant and witnesses to appear
in court despite due notice. The lack of cooperation from the private
complainant and the witnesses resulted to the failure of Prosecutor Janette L. Icao in proving the elements of the crime. Hence, Judge Maria
Angelita A. Banta-Alcoran ruled a permanent dismissal of the criminal
case resulting from the Prosecutions failure to prosecute.
Under Article 266-A, Rape is committed: 1) by a man who shall have
carnal knowledge of a woman under any of the following circumstances: a) through force, threat, or intimidation; b) When the offended party is deprived of reason or otherwise unconscious; c) by means
of fraudulent machination or grave abuse of authority; and d) when
the offended party is under twelve (12) years of age or is demented,
even though none of the circumstances mentioned above be present. 2) By any person who, under any of the circumstances mentioned
in paragraph 1 hereof, shall commit an act of sexual assault by inserting his penis into another persons mouth or anal orifice, or any instrument or object, into the genital or anal orifice of another person.
On the one hand, it is unfortunate that neither the Private Complainant
nor the Witnesses appeared in court to provide evidence and establish the elements of the crime of Rape and caused an unreasonable
delay in the proceedings, in violation of the Accuseds right to speedy
disposition or trial of the case against him.
On the other hand, in the light of the upcoming Easter Sunday which is
a sign of a new beginning, it is fortunate that the accused, XXX (CICL),
will benefit from the redemption conferred by our justice system.
Prepared by: Darrel Winthrop Gapasin Torres
43

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES v. HAROLD ABOY PARAO
Criminal Case No.:
For:

Witness:
CC-ZAM-2015-1832
Grave Threats,
Art. 282 (2) of the Revised Penal Code
PO2 Catalino Entea Jr.
The witness affirmed and confirmed his judicial affidavit. He identified

the police blotter entry on July 20, 2014 about a reported altercation
involving two police officers. The Accused allegedly manhandled the
Complainant, Raffy Segovia. He also saw the accused was injured and
asked if he will file a counter-complaint. But the accused responded that
he reserves his right to file an action regarding the matter. During cross examination, the witness likewise, confirmed and identified an entry in a prior
police blotter wherein the accused was also involved in another incident
of trespassing and illegal possession of bladed weapon with one Rolando
Jamosmos.
Art. 282. Grave Threats- Any person, who shall threaten another with the
infliction upon the person, honor, property of the latter or his family of any
wrong amounting to a crime, shall suffer:
XXX
(2) The penalty of arresto mayor and a fine not exceeding 500 pesos, if the
threat shall not have been subject to a condition.
Elements:
1.
That the offender threatens another person with the infliction
upon the latters person, honor, or property, or upon that of the latters
family, of any wrong.
2.
That such wrong amounts to a crime.
3.
That the threat is not subject to a condition.

The witness was not able to prove any of the elements of Grave
Threats. Notably, the witness testimony only identified the entry of the
police blotter stating the altercation of the accused and complainant. In
addition, witness also identified another entry in the police blotter involving
the accused in another incident which is deemed inadmissible under Rule
130 sec. 34 (Similar acts as evidence) of the Rules of Court.
Prepared by: Jannie Mae G. Alama
44

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES v. RALPH GAVIN HUGHES
Criminal case no:
For:

Name of Witness:
CC-DAU-2015-1837
Grave Coercion,
Art. 286 of Revised Penal Code
Ursulo Ariola
Ursulo Ariola, the complainant, alleged that on February 14, 2014,

one Ralph Gavin Hughes barged into his house, pushed a bunch
of papers in his face saying: You will sign this or else you will go
to jail and pay me a lot of money. He purported that Hughes
wanted to grab/occupy lot #394 which was beside his house in lot
#393. He signed the documents before his sons could stop him,
because of Hughes threatening words of putting him in jail and
paying him big money.
ART. 286. Grave coercions.
Elements: (1) That a person prevented another from doing something not prohibited by law, or that he compelled him to do something against his will, be it right or wrong. (2) That the prevention or
compulsion be effected by violence, threats or intimidation; and
(3) That the person that restrained the will and liberty of another
had not the authority of law or the right to do so, or, in other words,
that the restraint shall not be made under authority of law or in the
exercise of any lawful right.
Whether or not the witness testimony shows the crime of Grave
Coercion: Qualified Yes. The nature of the documents have
not yet been revealed. Nevertheless, it is grave coercion since
this crime does not distinguish the act compelled whether just
or unjust; whether it be right or wrong to sign the document. So
long as the complainant was compelled by a reasonable and
well-grounded fear of an imminent and grave evil upon his person
to give his consent.
If asking the complainant to sign the document is an exercise of
a lawful right, the accused should not have resorted to violence
or intimidation to force the complainant to sign, and thereby take
the law into his own hands.
45
And although there is nothing unlawful on the threat to sue, it was

not explicitly stated that suing was the intent, rather, just You will
sign this or else you will go to jail and pay me a lot of money.
Prepared by: Mae Avanzado
46
Crimes Against Property

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES v. GINO SEBONGGA AND JR SEBONGGA
Criminal Case No.:
23329
For: Arson
(Arts. 320 to 326 of Revised Penal Code, as ammended P.D 1613)
Name of witness:
Elesario Lajot and Gemma Lajot
Spouses Elesario and Gemma Lajot are the owner of the house
located in Siaton which was allegedly burned by Gino and JR Sebongga. Elesario Lajot relayed the events that occurred at around
7:00 pm on August 6, 2015. He heard JR shout outside their house
If you will not leave the house, we will kill you, prompting them
to leave the house through the back door and hid in the nearby
bushes.
Gemma Lajot was also asked to relay the events of the night. It
was noted that she only finished Grade 1 Elementary so the questions were asked slowly and repetitively. She relayed the events
guided by time: at 5:00 pm, she was cooking dinner and her
children were in the house, at 6:00 they are about to eat, at 7:00
pm, while they were eating, they heard Gino and JR Sebongga
approach their house and shouted If you will not leave the house,
we will kill you.
The spouses both claim that it was JR Sebongga who shouted the
words as they recognized their neighbors voice. When they were
already hiding in the bushes, they both saw Gino ignite their house
with a lighter.
I was not quite satisfied with the examination of the witnesses.
The house burned should have been thoroughly described and
its value estimated. The witnesses should have been asked if the
accused saw them get out of the house prior to the act of burning. Further, there should have been more inquiries on how the
accused burned the house (whether it was aided with gas, dry
leaves, or clothes).
Prepared by: Geraldine Fae T. Moragas
47
Crimes Against Chastity

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES v. JOCELYN FREI
Criminal Case No.:
For:

Name of witness:
C-150
Simple Slander by Deed,
Art. 359 of Revised Penal Code
Ms. Sanders
According to Ms. Sanders, the private complainant provoked the accused by

telling her shes mentally-ill and by cursing at her uttering fuck. Then there was
exchange of words between the complainant and the accused. After one
minute, the two were pulling each others hair in the middle of the school ground.
The witness just stood and watched them in shock. Another person separated
the two. The witness testified that there was no tearing down of dress that exposed the complainants left breast. The accuseds son got scratched as he also
attempted to break the fight.
Simple slander by deed as a crime penalized under Art. 359 has the following
elements:
1. That the offender performs any act not included in any other crime
against honor
2. Such act is performed in the presence of other person or persons
3. Such act casts dishonor, discredit or contempt upon the offended party
4. Such act is not of a serious nature
Slander by deed can not be clearly established. In Villanueva vs People, Slander
by deed is libel committed by actions rather than words. The most common
examples are slapping someone or spitting on his/her face in front of the public
market, in full view of a crowd, thus casting dishonor, discredit, and contempt
upon the person of another.Though there was a physical fight between the
accused and the complainant seen by other people, it can hardly be inferred
that the accused deliberately intended to cast dishonor, discredit or contempt
on the offended party. Her act was in the heat of anger in response to the complainants insults. Though the absence of deliberate act takes out its serious nature,
the fight which was both initiated by the accused and the complainant neither
constitutes simple slander by deed. The accused did not tear the complainants
dress down to expose her almost half-naked to embarass her infront of other
people.
Prepared by: Celeste Suamen
48

Criminal Law II Witness Testimonies Assessment

Hochgeladen von

Dokumentinformationen

Originalbeschreibung:

Copyright

Verfügbare Formate

Dieses Dokument teilen

Dokument teilen oder einbetten

Freigabeoptionen

Stufen Sie dieses Dokument als nützlich ein?

Sind diese Inhalte unangemessen?

Copyright:

Verfügbare Formate

Criminal Law II Witness Testimonies Assessment

Hochgeladen von

Copyright:

Verfügbare Formate

CRIMINAL LAW II PROJECT:

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES v. RIGE CALUGCUGAN

Crimes Against Public Interest

Crimes Related to Opium and Other Prohibited Drugs

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES v. ARCHER TRUPA and

PEOPLE vs. KHETZEL M. MINAO

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES v. ANGELO BASONA y TORRES

Crimes Against Persons

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES v. XXX (CICL)

Crimes Against Liberty and Security

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES v. RALPH GAVIN HUGHES

Crimes Against Property

Crimes Against Chastity

Crimes Against Public Order

Crimes Against Public Order

Crimes Against Public Order

Crimes Against Public Order

PO3 Degura was the prosecutions third witness. He was made to

Crimes Against Public Order

Crimes Against Public Interest

The witness came to know the accused, Christopher Fandialan

Crimes Against Public Interest

Crimes Relative to Opium and Other Prohibited Drugs

22495 and 22496

PO2 Eugene Calumba has been working for Philippine National

Crimes Relative to Opium and Other Prohibited Drugs

Crimes Relative to Opium and Other Prohibited Drugs

Crimes Relative to Opium and Other Prohibited Drugs

22495 and 22496

According to the accused-witness Reme Gregorio, he was just

Crimes Relative to Opium and Other Prohibited Drugs

Crimes Relative to Opium and Other Prohibited Drugs

22495 and 22496

Crimes Relative to Opium and Other Prohibited Drugs

Crimes Relative to Opium and Other Prohibited Drugs

Crimes Relative to Opium and Other Prohibited Drugs

22490 and 22491

Crimes Relative to Opium and Other Prohibited Drugs

Crimes Relative to Opium and Other Prohibited Drugs

Crimes Relative to Opium and Other Prohibited Drugs

Crimes Relative to Opium and Other Prohibited Drugs

Crimes Relative to Opium and Other Prohibited Drugs

P.O. Bordejo, interrogated by Pros. Cortes-Garces, provided for the

Crimes Relative to Opium and Other Prohibited Drugs

Crimes Relative to Opium and Other Prohibited Drugs

Crimes Relative to Opium and Other Prohibited Drugs

Crimes Relative to Opium and Other Prohibited Drugs

20555 & 20556

After an information and briefing by the head of PNP Dumaguete,

Crimes Relative to Opium and Other Prohibited Drugs

Crimes Relative to Opium and Other Prohibited Drugs

Crimes Relative to Opium and Other Prohibited Drugs

Crimes Relative to Opium and Other Prohibited Drugs

Crimes Relative to Opium and Other Prohibited Drugs

Crimes Relative to Opium and Other Prohibited Drugs

21973 & 21974

Section 5, Article II of RA 9165 prohibits the Sale, Trading, Administration,

Crimes Relative to Opium and Other Prohibited Drugs

Police officer Tumarong was designated as back up for police

Crimes Relative to Opium and Other Prohibited Drugs

Crimes Against Persons

Crimes Against Persons

Crimes Against Persons