HABIB U.

SIMBAN
4L Arellano

Personal Data of the Detainee

Name: Renato Polenzo
Gender: Male
Age: 52 yrs. old
Residence: Phase 1, Kalubihon, Iligan City
Date committed: May 22, 2019 at around 7 pm
Place arrested: In his residence
Case involved: R.A 9165 Sec. 5 and 11

Background of the Case

That around 7 in the evening, while the Accused was resting in his residence at
Phase 1 Kalubihon, Iligan City, an alleged buy-bust operation was conducted against
him. According to the Accused, he was then lying in their sala when suddenly a group of
Police Officers barged-in inside their house. The Accused further stated that when the
Police Officers entered into their house, the Police Officers were looking for drugs inside
the premise. And from there, they handcuffed the Accused and brought him to another
place other than his residence where the Police Officers showed the alleged 1 sachet
shabu that was allegedly seized from the Accused through a valid buy-bust operation
together with the marked money worth Five Hundred (P500) Pesos which served as the
consideration of the buy-bust operation.
However, the Accused stand on his ground and argued that during the said buy-
bust operation, the Police Officers never seized any shabu from him and there was no
buy-bust operation conducted by the Police Officers since there was no sale between
him and the Police Officers’ poseur buyer which was the operative act to trigger the buy-
bust operation. In fact, the Accused was lying in their sala because he is exhausted
from his work. The Accused further alleged that during that time when the buy-bust
operation was conducted, he was lying in their sala together with his family and
according to him; even his family could testify that there was indeed no sale was
conducted between him and the poseur buyer for the sale of the alleged seized drug.
The Accused even strengthen his argument on the premise that it was impossible for
him to be indicted of selling drugs since during that time. The Accused attested that he
has no money in his pocket prior to the arrival of the Police Officers in his residence and
it is only when the arresting officers seized his pocket the marked money came out from
him.
HABIB U. SIMBAN
4L Arellano

Merits of the Case

The Accused should be presumed innocent and thus should be acquitted from
the case indicted against him.
In the case of People of the Philippines vs. Ventura, G.R No. 184957, the
Supreme Court said that:
For conviction of the crime of illegal sale of prohibited or
regulated drugs, the following elements must concur: (1) the identities
of the buyer and the seller, the object, and the consideration; and (2)
the delivery of the thing sold and the payment for it. 22The testimonial
and documentary pieces of evidence adduced by the prosecution in
support of its case against accused-appellant establish the presence of
these elements.
If this ruling of the Supreme Court is to be followed, it is clear that the Accused
could be acquitted from the crime against him since that there is a failure to identify the
identities of the buyer since the Accused was not engaged in selling drugs during the
time the buy-bust operation was conducted against him. Further, the Accused attested
that when the buy-bust operation was conducted against him, it was during his rest time
and he was not even selling drugs during that time. Also, there was no other person in
his family that is actually selling drugs.
In the similar case of People of the Philippines vs. Montevirgen, G.R No. 189840,
the Supreme Court said that:
In every prosecution for the illegal sale of shabu, under Section
5, Article II of RA 9165, the following elements must be proved: "(1) the
identity of the buyer and the seller, the object and the consideration;
and (2) the delivery of the thing sold and the payment therefor. x x x
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"17 or the illicit drug in
evidence.
Furthermore, the indictment could fail on the ground that the marked money was
spurious since, from his statement, the marked money only came out when the
arresting officer seized his pocket and prior to that, the Accused has no money stored in
his pocket.
Hence, from the foregoing statements, it is humbly submitted that the Accused
should be released from jail and be acquitted from his case.