REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES

GOTHAM TRIAL COURT

101st JUDICIAL REGION
BRANCH 01
GOTHAM CITY

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES

-versus- CRIM. CASE NO. 20001-18-C

FOR: Violation of Section 5
of R.A. 9165
PAMELA LILIAN ISLEY
a.k.a POISION IVY,
Accused.
X---------------------------------------X
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES

-versus- CRIM. CASE NO. 20002-17-C

FOR: Violation of Section 11
of R.A. 9165
PAMELA LILIAN ISLEY
a.k.a POISION IVY,
Accused.
X---------------------------------------X

CONSOLIDATED DECISION

The Case

This consolidated decision pertains to cases filed against

accused PAMELA LILIAN ISLEY a.k.a POISON IVY (“Ivy”, for brevity)
for violations of Republic Act (R.A.) No. 9165 otherwise known as
“The Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002”. Accused Ivy
was charged with violation of Sections 5 and 11 of said R.A. 9165
in two (2) separate informations the accusatorial portions of which
read as follows:

Criminal Case No. 20001-18-C

“That on or about 5:30 in the evening of January 01,

2018 at Fourteenth Street, Gotham City and within the
jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the above-named accused,
without authority of law, did then and there willfully,
unlawfully and feloniously sell to a poseur buyer a quantity of
dried Marijuana fruiting tops, a dangerous drug, having a total
weight of Two Hundred and Fifty (250) grams, in violation of
the aforementioned law.”

CONTRARY TO LAW.”

Page 1 of 5| B A T M A N C H R O N I C L E S
 and

Criminal Case No. 20002-18-C

“That on or about 5:30 in the evening of January 01,

2018 at Fourteenth Street, Gotham City and within the
jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the above-named accused,
without authority of law, did then and there willfully,
unlawfully and feloniously possess three (3) bricks of dried
Marijuana fruiting tops, a dangerous drug, having a total
weight of Four Thousand Nine Hundred Fifty (4,950) grams, in
violation of the aforementioned law.”

CONTRARY TO LAW.”

Accused Ivy was arraigned on 14 February 2017. Accused

entered a plea of not guilty. It has to be noted that when accused
Ivy was arraigned, the prosecution proposed and the defense
admitted certain stipulations pertinent to the testimony of one of
the prosecution’s intended witnesses, Forensic Chemist (FC) James
Gordon (“Gordon”). Thus, his testimony was dispensed with. Pre-
trial for these cases was held and terminated on 7 April 2018. After
which, trial ensued.

Evidence for the Prosecution

During trial, the prosecution presented Police Officers (PO)

Jim Corrigan (“Corrigan”), the poseur buyer and seizing officer in
this case and PO Roger De Carlo (“De Carlo”), the arresting officer.

Again, as already mentioned, the testimony of the forensic

chemist who examined the alleged contrabands was dispensed with
after some admissions by the defense.

PO Corrigan testified that on 13 January 2018, a confidential

informant went to the Gotham Crime Detection and Prevention
Group (GCDPG) Office in Diamond District, Gotham City and
directly reported to him that a certain Pamela Isley aliased Poison
Ivy, the accused in this case, sells marijuana in Fourteenth Street,
Gotham City. To verify the said report, PO Corrigan instructed the
informant to send a text message to accused Ivy, expressing
interest in buying marijuana. The informant later received a reply
from accused Ivy which PO Corrigan read then read as “goods
depleted. Will inform you when restocked”. PO Corrigan testified
that the informant further negotiated and transacted with accused
Ivy through a series of text messages. On 16 January 2018, the
confidential informant returned to the GCDPG office and showed
PO Corrigan another text message from accused Ivy who allegedly
agreed to meet in Fourteenth Street two hundred fifty (250) grams

Page 2 of 5| B A T M A N C H R O N I C L E S
of marijuana worth fifty dollars ( $50.00). PO Corrigan relayed the
information to a certain Commissioner Loeb, the acting Chief of
Police. Commissioner Loeb immediately ordered the conduct of a
buy-bust operation against accused Ivy. A buy-bust team was
formed, buy-bust money was prepared and PO Corrigan was
assigned as the poseur buyer while the informant was tasked to
accompany PO Corrigan. After the customary briefing, the buy-bust
team proceeded to Fourteenth Street.

When the police team arrived at the target area, they went
inside a restaurant and waited for another text message from the
accused. The informant then received a call and PO Corrigan heard
that accused Ivy asked them to meet in front of a certain
skateboard park located across the restaurant where they are
positioned. PO Corrigan and the informant walked to the agreed
meeting place while the rest of the buy-bust team positioned
themselves as backup security. When PO Corrigan and the
informant arrived at the said restaurant, a woman riding a red
Ducati motorcycle approached them. The informant told PO
Corrigan that the said woman is their target. The informant then
told accused Ivy that PO Corrigan is his cousin who was interested
in purchasing marijuana. After a brief conversation between the
trio, PO Corrigan handed the $50.00 buy-bust money to accused
Ivy. In exchange, accused Ivy handed a red shoulder bag to PO
Corrigan. PO Corrigan inspected the said bag and discovered one
(1) brick of suspected marijuana placed therein. PO Corrigan then
lit a cigarette, a pre-arranged signal for his fellow officers to signify
successful purchase of marijuana from their target. The backup
security officers immediately rushed to PO Corrigan’s position. PO
De Carlo, who was among the backup security officers, handcuffed
and arrested accused Ivy. PO Corrigan then performed a preventive
search on accused Ivy. The search yielded in the seizure of the buy-
bust money which he earlier handed to accused Ivy. The police
officers then ordered the accused to present the pertinent
documents of his motorcycle. PO Corrigan testified that when
accused Ivy opened the motorcycle’s utility box, he and the other
police officers saw three (3) more bricks of suspected dried
marijuana leaves. PO Corrigan seized the said bricks of marijuana.
PO Corrigan himself individually marked all of the confiscated
contrabands. He marked the brick of dried marijuana leaves which
he earlier bought from accused Ivy with marking “PLI-1”.
Meanwhile, the three (3) bricks of dried marijuana leaves found
inside the utility box of accused Ivy’s motorcycle were marked “PLI-
2” to “PLI-4”. PO Corrigan testified that he conducted an inventory
of the contrabands he bought and seized from the accused at the
place of arrest. The inventory was conducted in the presence of a
certain Victoria Vale (“Vale”), an alleged media representative and a
certain John Blakea (“Blake”), an alleged government official. The
inventory receipt was then signed by Ivy, Vale and Blake. The police
officers then brought the accused to the GCDPG office in Diamond

Page 3 of 5| B A T M A N C H R O N I C L E S
District. After which, PO Corrigan delivered and turned over the
confiscated contrabands to the Crime Laboratory.

During cross-examination, PO Corrigan admitted that the

pictures depicting the contrabands protruding from accused Ivy’s
motorcycle were taken at the police station and not at the place of
arrest. PO Corrigan likewise admitted that no evidence was
presented to prove the identities of the media representative and
government official who allegedly signed the inventory. Lastly, PO
Corrigan admitted that regardless of failure to secure the
attendance of a Department of Defense (DOD) representative in the
conduct of the buy-bust operation or even during the conduct of
the inventory, the police officers.

In the course of his testimony, PO Corrigan identified the

accused. PO Corrigan’ ability to identify pertinent documents in
connection to this case and the bricks of marijuana was earlier
stipulated by the prosecution and was admitted by the defense.

When PO De Carlowas called to testify, the prosecution

proposed and the defense admitted that the testimony of PO De
Carlo would essentially corroborate the testimony of another
witness for the prosecution, a certain PO Branden. With the
admission of the defense, the testimony of PO De Carlo was
dispensed with. However, it has to be noted that the prosecution
later failed to present PO Branded despite several warnings. Thus,
the prosecution was deemed to have waived its right to present
further evidence. In effect, PO De Carlo’s testimony is impractical
precisely because he was presented as a witness only to
corroborate the testimony of PO Branded.

Evidence for the Defense

For the defense, accused Ivy was presented as witnesses.

Accused Ivy essentially denied the charges against her and

had a different version of what transpired on 16 January 2018. He
testified that on or about 8:30 in the evening of the same day, she
came from her laboratory and was on her way home to Fourteenth
Street. While she was riding her motorcycle along Thirteenth Street,
five (5) armed men blocked her way and ordered her to alight from
her motorcycle. Immediately after alighting, she was handcuffed by
one of the armed men and then frisked her. Accused Ivy asked the
men what her fault was, but the men told her “wait and you’ll know
soon enough” and then laughed. Accused Ivy testified that the men
found nothing illegal on her. However, the men then forced her into
a car. She was later brought to the GCDPG office, concluding that
the armed men are police officers. She was detained in a room

Page 4 of 5| B A T M A N C H R O N I C L E S
thereat and was forced to tell the police officers where she hides her
“flavor brownies” which he later found out refers to marijuana. She
was asked where her house is located but she refused to answer.
One of the police officers then pointed a gun at her and threatened
him that should she still refuse answer, they will bury her. Accused
Ivy testified that the police officers never found anything illegal in
her person and denied having bricks of marijuana in her
motorcycle. In effect, accused Ivy alleged that she was illegally
arrested by the police and the evidence presented in Court against
her were merely planted.

After the testimony of accused Ivy was completed and

terminated, the defense counsel offered in evidence the Affidavit of
the witnesses. There being no opposition as to the admissibility of
the said document, the same was admitted in evidence. Thereafter,
the defense rested its case.

/batman

Page 5 of 5| B A T M A N C H R O N I C L E S