Republic of the Philippines

COURT OF APPEALS
Manila

Nineteenth Division

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

-versus- CA–G.R. CEB CR-HC No. 02376

EDDIE AMORIN TINAPAY,

Accused-Appellants.
x - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -x

BRIEF FOR THE APPELLEE

APPELLEE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, by

counsel, respectfully states:

STATEMENT OF THE CASE

1. This is an appeal from the Decision1 dated July 29,

2016 of the Regional Trial Court of Bacolod City, Branch 30,
in Criminal Case No. 2015-22786, finding appellant Eddie
Amorin Tinapay @ Eddie guilty beyond reasonable doubt of
Violation of Section 5, Article II of Republic Act (R.A.) No.
9165, otherwise known as The Comprehensive Dangerous
Drugs Act of 2002. The dispositive portion of the Decision
states:

WHEREFORE, in the light of the foregoing, the Court

hereby finds the accused Eddie Amorin Tinapay GUILTY
beyond reasonable doubt of the offense of illegal sale,
delivery and giving away of 0.08 gram of shabu in violation
of Section 5, Article II of R.A. No. 9165 and is hereby
sentenced to suffer a penalty of life imprisonment and to
pay a fine of Five Hundred Thousand Pesos (P500,000.00).

The one (1) heat-sealed transparent plastic sachet

with markings “EAT-BB-02-18-15” weighing 0.08 gram of

1
Appendix “A,” Brief for the Appellant.
BRIEF FOR THE APPELLEE
People vs. Tinapay
CA-G.R. CEB CR-HC No. 02376
x- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -x

shabu is hereby confiscated and forfeited in favor of the

government and to be disposed of in accordance with law.

In the service of sentence, the accused Eddie Amorin

Tinapay shall be credited with the full time during which he
ahs undergone preventive imprisonment, provided he
agrees voluntarily in writing to abide by the same
disciplinary rules imposed upon convicted prisoners.

SO ORDERED.

2. This case stems from an Information2 for Violation

of Section 5, Article II of R.A. No. 9165 filed against
appellants, the accusatory portion of which reads:

That on or about the 18th day of February 2015 in

the Municipality of Sibulan, Negros Oriental and within the
jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the above-named
accused, without being authorized by law, did then and
there, willfully, unlawfully and knowingly sell, deliver and
give away to PO3 WEB S. MANANQUIL, a police poseur-
buyer, one (1) heat-sealed transparent plastic sachet
containing Methylamphetamine Hydrochloride, commonly
known as “shabu”, a dangerous drug, weighing 0.08 gram,
in consideration of the sum of three hundred pesos (Php
30000), Philippine currency, in violation of Sec 5,
paragraph 1, Art. II of RA 9165.

That accused was found positive for

methamphetamine under Chemistry Report DT-057-15.

Contrary to Sec. 5 par. 1, Art II, RA 9165.

3. When arraigned, appellants pleaded “not guilty” to

the charge against him.

4. The prosecution presented eight (8) witnesses

namely Police Officer 2 Robert John Pama (PO2 Pama),
Police Chief Inspector Josephine Llena (PCI Llena), DOJ
representative Andres Mangubat, Police Officer 3 Web

2
Ibid, p.1.

2
BRIEF FOR THE APPELLEE
People vs. Tinapay
CA-G.R. CEB CR-HC No. 02376
x- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -x

Mananquil (PO3 Mananquil), Kagawad Claudio Ramos, media

practitioner Jufill Mira, Senior Police Officer 1 Jeric Dipaling
(SPO1 Dipaling) and Senior Police Officer 4 Rheul Piñero
(SPO4 Piñero) as its witnesses. The prosecution was also
supposed to present PDEA Agent Erwin Purisima (Agent
Purisima) as a witness. However, the parties agreed to
stipulate on facts with regards to the gist of his testimony.

5. On the other hand, the defense presented the

accused-appellant Eddie Amorin Tinapay and his son Syrian
Tinapay as its witnesses.

6. On July 29, 2016, the trial court a quo rendered

the assailed Decision.

7. Aggrieved, the appellant appealed his conviction.

8. In this appeal of the appellant, he raised the error

allegedly committed by the trial court:

The court a quo gravely erred in convicting accused-

appellant of the crime charged despite the failure of the
prosecution to prove his guilt beyond reasonable doubt.

COUNTERSTATEMENT OF FACTS

10. Appellee begs leave to adopt the facts of the case

as summarized by the trial court from the combined
testimonies of the prosecution witnesses, as follows:

At around 6 o’clock in the morning of February 18,

2015, PO3 Web Mananquil, Intelligence Operative of the
Sibulan Police Station was able to talk with a walk-in
confidential informant. The confidential informant relayed
to PO3 Mananquil that a certain Eddie is engaged in the

3
BRIEF FOR THE APPELLEE
People vs. Tinapay
CA-G.R. CEB CR-HC No. 02376
x- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -x

sale of illegal drugs at Purok 4, Barangay Cangmating,

Sibulan, Negros Oriental and other neighboring
barangays. The confidential informant also relayed that he
had been recruited by the said Eddie to sell shabu for a
commission. PO3 Mananquil immediately reported to
Sibulan Police Station Chief of Police, PSI Antonio Detuya,
the information that the confidential informant gave him.
Acting on this, PSI Detuya decided to conduct a buy-bust
operation against the said Eddie. A briefing for the buy-
bust operation against the reported Eddie was immediately
conducted. In attendance were PSI Detuya, SPO4 Rhuel
Piñero, PO3 Jeric Dipaling, PO2 Michael Piñero, PO1 Carl
Lazalita and PO3 Mananquil. During the briefing, PO3
Mananquil was designated as the poseur-buyer while PO3
Dipaling was designated as the immediate back-up. The
rest of the team was also designated as additional security
and back-up. It was also agreed that the confidential
informant would introduce PO3 Mananquil as a buyer to
Eddie. As the designated poseur-buyer, PO3 Mananquil
prepared three (3) one hundred peso (P 100.00) bills with
serial numbers XZ374306, NH047795 and NB 952391,
respectively. PO3 Mananquil marked these bills with the
initials “WM” on the forehead of the image of Manuel
Roxas found on each bill. It was further agreed that PO3
Mananquil would place a miss call to the cellular phone of
PSI Detuya once the transcation was completed. After the
briefing, PO3 Mananquil coordinated the impending buy-
bust operation with the local PDEA office through text
message. The coordination request was received by PDEA
duty agent Erwin Purisima, who forwarded the coordination
request to the PDEA Regional Office 7, which in turn issued
coordination control number 0215-00195. Agent Purisima
later issued a Certificate of Coordination as part of the
documentary requirements when this case was filled
before the Provincial Prosecutor’s Office. It was already
7:30 in the morning of the same day when PO3 Mananquil
proceeded to the target area of Purok 4, Barangay
Cangmating, Sibulan, Negros Oriental driving his own
motorcycle. Riding with PO3 Mananquil was the
confidential informant. The rest of the buy-bust operation
team followed the duo to the target area. They then
positioned themselves in strategic locations there. Upon
arrival at the target area, PO3 Mananquil parked his
motorcycle about fifteen (15) meters away from the house
of Eddie. PO3 Mananquil, together with the confidential
informant, then walked towards the house of Eddie. A ew
meters away from the house of Eddie. A few meters away
from the house of Eddie, PO3 Mananquil stopped while the
confidential informant proceeded towards the house. From
where he was standing, PO3 Mananquil saw the
confidential informant talk with Eddie. After a while, the
4
BRIEF FOR THE APPELLEE
People vs. Tinapay
CA-G.R. CEB CR-HC No. 02376
x- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -x

confidential informant and Eddie walked towards PO3

Mananquil. When the two were already near, the
confidential informant introduced PO3 Mananquil to Eddie
as his friend who wanted to buy shabu. Eddie then asked
PO3 Mananquil how much he wanted to buy. PO3
Mananquil replied that he wanted to buy three hundred
pesos (P300.00) worth of shabu. As soon as Eddie heard
this, he immediately asked PO3 Mananquil for the money.
PO3 Mananquil gave the P300.00 buy-bust money he had
earlier prepared to Eddie. Upon receipt of the money,
Eddie immediately gave PO3 Mananquil one (1) heat-
sealed transparent plastic sachet containing white
crystalline substance, PO3 Mananquil quickly examined the
contents of the sachet. Based on his schooling and
experience as a police officer, PO3 concluded that the
sachet contained shabu. After confirming that the sachet
contained shabu, PO3 Mananquil placed the same inside
his sling bag. PO3 Mananquil made small talk with Eddie.
He then pretended to ask for Eddie’s number. While
pretending to input Eddie’s number in his cellular phone,
PO3 Mananquil placed a missed call to their team leader,
the prearranged signal for a completed transaction. Upon
receiving the missed call, PSI Detuya, instructed the rest
of the team to rush to where PO3 Mananquil was. As the
rest of the team rushed to where PO3 Mananquil was,
Eddie saw their coming and attempted to run. However,
PO3 Mananquil was quick to grab Eddie. The two grappled
with each other until they fell to the ground. PO3 Dipaling,
who had rushed with the buy bust team, immediately
helped PO3 Mananquil in subduing Eddie. PO3 Mananquil
was able to pacify Eddie with the help of PO3 Dipaling. PO3
Mananquil then placed Eddie in handcuff, informed him of
his authority as a police officer then arrested him in the
Visayan dialect for selling illegal drugs. Still in the Visayan
dialect, PO3 Mananquil also informed Eddie of his
constitutional rights, making sure that Eddie understood.
As a consequence of the lawful arrest, PO3 Dipaling
conducted a body search on Eddie. He was able to recover
the three (3) pieces one hundred peso (P100.00) bills buy-
bust money from Eddie. Subsequently, while still at the
crime scene, PO3 Mananquil marked the one (1) heat-
sealed transparent plastic sachet containing white
crystalline substance that he had earlier bought from Eddie
with the initials “EAT-BB-2-18-15.” The initials “EAT” refer
to the complete name of Eddie, which then asked, gave
the same as Eddie Amorin Tinapay. The letters “BB” refer
to the buy-bust operation while the series of numbers refer
to the date of the incident. Eddie Amorin Tinapay is now
the accused in this case. Still the crime scene, PO3
Mananquil conducted an inventory of all the items bought,
seized and confiscated during the buy-bust operation in
5
BRIEF FOR THE APPELLEE
People vs. Tinapay
CA-G.R. CEB CR-HC No. 02376
x- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -x

the presence of the accused as well as the required

witnesses who were called for the purpose and had arrived
by then. PO3 Mananquil prepared a Receipt/Inventory of
Property Seized which he signed as the seizing
officer/evidence custodian. The same document was
signed by Barangay Cangmating Kagawad Claudio Ramos,
media practitioner Jufill Mira and DOJ representative
Andres Mangubat. SPO4 Rhuel Tan Piñero also signed the
document as the team leader/supervisor of the operation
while PO3 Dipaling signed the same as the photographer,
having taken the photographs during the conduct of the
inventory. Once the inventory was done, the entire buy-
bust team proceeded to the Sibulan Police Station for
proper documentation and disposition of the case. They
also bought with them the accused Tinapay as well as all
the items bought, seized and confiscated from him during
the buy-bust. PO3 Mananquil placed the one (1) heat-
sealed transparent plastic sachet marked as “EAT-BB-2-
18-15” inside a brown evidence envelope which he tape-
sealed and signed. PO3 Mananquil kept sole possession
and control of this brown envelope at all times. At the
police station, a Memorandum Request for Laboratory
Examination and Drug Test addressed to the Chief of the
Crime Laboratory, Province of Negros Oriental, Dumaguete
City, was prepared. This request was signed by SPO4
Piñero. The incident was also entered in the Sibulan Police
Blotter. Armed with the memorandum request, PO3
Mananquil brought the brown evidence envelope
containing the one heat-sealed transparent plastic sachet
as well as the accused Tinapay to the crime laboratory for
examination and drug test. At the crime laboratory, it was
duty officer PO2 Robert John Pama who received from PO3
Mananquil as 1512H or 3:12 in the afternoon of February
18, 2015 the one (1) tape-sealed brown envelope
containing one (1) heat-sealed transparent plastic sachet
with markings “EAT-BB-2-18-15” with signature,
containing white crystalline substance as indicated in the
memorandum request he received. PO2 Pama checked
whether the items he received jibed with the items listed
down in the memorandum request also received. After
ascertaining that the same tallied, PO2 Pama returned the
plastic sachet inside the brown envelope with masking
tape. Later, at 1520H or 3:20 in the afternoon of the same
day, PO2 Pama submitted the said brown evidence
envelope to PCI Llena who had arrived by then.
Upon receipt of the items from PO2 Pama as listed in
the memorandum request, PCI Llena immediately assigned
these with her examiner’s markings as follows: as
Specimen “A” D-069-15 JSL for the tape-sealed brown
envelope and as Specimen “A-1” for the one (1) heat-
sealed transparent plastic sachet with markings “EAT-BB-
6
BRIEF FOR THE APPELLEE
People vs. Tinapay
CA-G.R. CEB CR-HC No. 02376
x- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -x

2-18-15”, with signature, containing white crystalline

substance. PCI Llena determined the net weight of
Specimen “A-1” and recorded it to contain 0.08 gram of
white crystalline substance. PCI Llena then conducted a
qualitative examination on Specimen “A-1” which gave
positive result to the tests for Methamphetamine
Hydrochloride, a dangerous drug under R.A. No. 9165. Her
findings and conclusions were embodied in her submitted
Chemistry Report No. D-069-15. PCI Llena also conducted
a laboratory examination on the urine sample taken from
the living person of the accused Eddie Amorin Tinapay. Her
screening and confirmatory tests conducted on the urine
sample gave positive result to the tests for the presence of
Methamphetamine, a dangerous drug under R.A. No. 9165.
Her findings and conclusion with regard to the said urine
test were indicated in her submitted Chemistry Report No.
DT-057-15. Prior to her submission to this court of the
specimen she received and examined on February 18,
2015, PCI Llena kept the same in the evidence vault of the
crime laboratory of which she has the only access to. PCI
Llena eventually submitted the said specimen together
with her chemistry reports to this court for the trial of this
case on April 23, 2015. In support of this case filed, PO3
Mananquil and PO3 Dipaling executed a Joint Affidavit of
Arrest which they both identified in open court.

DISCUSSION

The trial court did not err in

convicting appellant Tinapay
of the crime charged as the
prosecution has established
with moral certainty that he
has sold illegal drugs defined
under Section 5, Article II of
Republic Act No. 9165.

11. Section 5 of the Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs

Act of 2002 punishes the sale of dangerous drugs, to wit:

Sec. 5. Sale, Trading, Administration, Dispensation,

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

7
BRIEF FOR THE APPELLEE
People vs. Tinapay
CA-G.R. CEB CR-HC No. 02376
x- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -x

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 such transactions.

12. Section 3 of the same law defined the acts

punished and enumerated in Sections 5 and 26, thus:

Sec. 3. Definitions. As used in this Act, the following

terms shall mean:

(a) Administer. – Any act of introducing any

dangerous drug into the body of any person, with or
without his/her knowledge, by injection, inhalation,
ingestion or other means, or of committing any act of
indispensable assistance to a person in administering a
dangerous drug to himself/herself unless administered by
a duly licensed practitioner for purposes of medication.

xxxx

(k) Deliver. – Any act of knowingly passing a

dangerous drug to another, personally or otherwise, and
by any means, with or without consideration.

xxxx

(m) Dispense. – Any act of giving away, selling or

distributing medicine or any dangerous drug with or
without the use of prescription.

xxxx

(ii) Sell. – Any act of giving away any dangerous

drug and/or controlled precursor and essential chemical
whether for money or any other consideration.

13. 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

8
BRIEF FOR THE APPELLEE
People vs. Tinapay
CA-G.R. CEB CR-HC No. 02376
x- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -x

thing sold and the payment for it.3 In prosecutions involving

the illegal sale of drugs, what is material is proof that the
transaction or sale actually took place, coupled with the
presentation in court of the prohibited or regulated drug as
evidence.4 The commission of the offense of illegal sale of
dangerous drugs 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.5

14. In this case, PO3 Mananquil testified on the

circumstances of the illegal sale which was consummated
upon accused-appellant simultaneously gave to PO3
Mananquil one-heat sealed transparent plastic sachet
containing white crystalline substance, a dangerous drug
shabu and received the P300.00 buy bust money from the
same. Upon direct examination, he stated that:

xxx xxx xxx

Question = Do you remember where you were in the

early morning of February 18, 2015?

Answer = At Sibulan Police Station, ma’am.

Question = While you were at your station, did

anything unusual happen in connection with
this case?

Answer = Yes ma’am.

Question = What was that?

Answer = At about 6:00 o’clock in the morning of

February 18, 2015, a walking informant
arrived at our station and reported that a
certain Eddie, a drug pusher, was selling
shabu in Purok 4, Barangay Cangmating,
Sibulan and other nearing barangays,
ma’am.

Question = Okay! Who did this informant talk to?

3
People v. Capalad, G.R. No. 184174, 7 April 2009.
4
Ching v. People, 569 SCRA 711, 724.
5
People v. Alviz, G.R. No. 177158, February 6, 2013.

9
BRIEF FOR THE APPELLEE
People vs. Tinapay
CA-G.R. CEB CR-HC No. 02376
x- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -x

Answer = Me ma’am.

Question = You? What did you do upon receipt of this

information?

Answer = After I talked with the informant, ma’am, I

informed immediately our Chief of Police
PSI Antonio Detuya.

Question = And what was the action of Insp. Detuya

to this information?

Answer = He said that we could conduct a briefing,

ma’am, for a buy bust operation.

Question = Okay and who were present during this

briefing?

Answer = PSI Antonio Detuya, our team leader,

SPO4 Rhuel Tan Piñero and PO1 Carl
Lazalita.

Question = Okay and what was discussed during the

briefing?

Answer = I was designated, ma’am, as the poseur

buyer and as the poseur buyer, I prepared
three (3) pieces One Hundred (P100.00)
bills as buy-bust money, ma’am.

Question = Okay! Where did this money come from?

Answer = Me Ma’am

Question = Okay and how (about) other members of

the team? What were their participation?

Answer = PO3 Dipaling and the rest of the team as

the security backup ma’am.

Question = Okay and did you discuss any other signal

during the briefing?

Answer = Yes Ma’am

Question = What was that?

Answer = Once the transaction is done, I would

make a missed call to our team leader,
ma’am.

10
BRIEF FOR THE APPELLEE
People vs. Tinapay
CA-G.R. CEB CR-HC No. 02376
x- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -x

Question = Who was your team leader in this

operation?

Answer = PSI Antonio Detuya, ma’am.

Question = Okay! By the way, did you also make a

drug deal before the buy bust operation?

Answer = No, not anymore, ma’am, because the

informant and subject already talked
ma’am, and the subject told him that
whoever could find a buyer would get a
commission.

Question = So after the briefing, what happened next?

Answer = After the briefing at about 7:30 in the

morning, on the same day, me designated
as the poseur buyer. Before that, ma’am,
7:30 AM, we coordinated the PDEA,
ma’am.

Question = Who coordinated the PDEA?

Answer = Me also, ma’am

Question = Okay, after that, what did you do next?

Answer = At about 7:30 in the morning if the same

day, as a poseur buyer, I drove my
motorcycle going to Purok 4, Barangay
Cangamating.

Question = Who was with you in your motorcycle?

Answer = The informant as the back rider, ma’am.

Question = The two (2) of you?

Answer = Yes ma’am.

Question = And what happened when you reached

Purok 4, Cangmating?

Answer = When we reached Barangay Cangmating,

there’s a barangay road and we turned left
to a small road in going to the house of
the subject Eddie, ma’am.

11
BRIEF FOR THE APPELLEE
People vs. Tinapay
CA-G.R. CEB CR-HC No. 02376
x- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -x

Question = And were you able to arrive at the house

of the accused Eddie?

Answer = More or less fifteen (15) meters away from

the house of Eddie, I parked my
motorcycle and then we walked towards
his house.

Question = Who walked with you?

Answer = The informant ma’am.

Question = Okay and while you were walking, what

happened next?

Answer = I stopped fifteen (15) to twenty (20)

meters away from the house of Eddie and
the informant continued towards the
house?

Question = Why did you stop?

Answer = Before the house of subject Eddie, ma’am

Question = Why did you stop?

Answer = The informant and the subject were still

talking.

Question = When you say subject, who are you

referring to?

Answer = Eddie ma’am. Eddie Amorin Tinapay.

Question = You are referring to the accused?

Answer = The accused, ma’am.

Question = And how far were you when the informant

and the accused talked? How far were you
from them?

Answer = Fifteen (15) more or less, ma’am. Fifteen

(15) meters!

Question = Okay! And you could see them talking?

Answer = After they talked, they came towards me.

Question = Who walked towards you?

Answer = The informant and the accused, ma’am.

12
BRIEF FOR THE APPELLEE
People vs. Tinapay
CA-G.R. CEB CR-HC No. 02376
x- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -x

Question = Okay and what happened when they

reached you?

Answer = The informant introduced me to Eddie and

told Eddie that I was his friend and I
wanted to buy shabu.

Question = Okay, what happened next after that?

Answer = The accused asked me how much I wanted

to buy.

Question = What was your reply?

Answer = I said Three Hundred Pesos (P300.00).

Question = What happened next after you said Three

Hundred Pesos (P300.00)?

Answer = He asked me, “Where is the money?” and

I gave him three (3) pieces of One
Hundred Peso (P100.00) bills.

Question = Who asked you “Where is the money?”

Answer = The accused, ma’am.

Question = To whom did you give the three (3) pieces

of One Hundred Peso (P100.00) bills?

Answer = The accused, ma’am.

Question = To the accused? Okay and what did he do

with the money?

Answer = As soon as he received the money,

ma’am, he immediately gave the one (1)
heat-sealed transparent plastic sachet
containing shabu granules, ma’am.

Question = To whom was this one (1) plastic sachet

given to?

Answer = Me ma’am.

Question = Who gave it to you?

Answer = The accused, ma’am.

Question = Okay! What did you do upon receiving it?

Answer = I examined it if it was really shabu.

13
BRIEF FOR THE APPELLEE
People vs. Tinapay
CA-G.R. CEB CR-HC No. 02376
x- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -x

Question = What was it?

Answer = When I confirmed that it was shabu, I

placed it in my sling bag.

Question = How did you know that it was shabu?

Answer = Based on my schooling and experience

from what I’ve seen.

Question = When you said schooling, since hwen was

this shabu familiar to you?

Answer = Since I was in college as a Criminology

student.

Question = And since when were you familiar with it

as you said through your experience?

Answer = When I became a police officer ma’am.

Question = Okay! So after you saw that it was shabu,

what did you do with it?

Answer = I put it in my sling bag, ma’am, then I

asked the accused if I could buy again

Question = Okay! Why were you asking him whether

you could buy again?

Answer = I asked him a question, ma’am, so I could

build a relationship with him.

Question = Okay, so when you were asking him

whether you can buy again, what else did
you do, if any?

Answer = He replied yes then I asked him also if I

could have his contact no.

Question = Okay and so what was his reply?

Answer = He said yes then I immediately got my

cellphone from my pocket. While asking
his no., I made a missed call to our team
leader. That’s the pre-arranged, ma’am.

Question = Okay! So as while as you said you made

this missed call, what happened next?

14
BRIEF FOR THE APPELLEE
People vs. Tinapay
CA-G.R. CEB CR-HC No. 02376
x- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -x

Answer = While he was giving me his no., I made a

missed call and my companions rushed up
to us.

Question = While the other operatives rushed up to

you, what happened next?

Answer = He saw people running towards him so he

attempted to run. When he attempted to
run, I grabbed him. Since he was big, we
grappled until we fell on the ground.

Question = Okay and what happened next?

Answer = PO3 Dipaling arrived, helped me and Eddie

was placed in handcuffs.

Question = After he was handcuffed, what did you do

next?

Answer = Towards my left, Sir.

Questions = And then, what next happened?

Answer = I effected the arrest, ma’am. I introduced

myself again as a police officer then I
informed him the nature of the offense
committed and his constitutional rights,
ma’am.

Question = In what language did you say that?

Answer = In Visayan dialect, ma’am.

Question = Do you remember what you said?

Answer = Yes ma’am.

Question = What did you say?

Answer = “Ikaw gidakop sa salang pagbaligya ug

illegal nga droga. Ikaw adunay katungod
sa pagpakahilom. Unsa man gani and
imong isulti mahimong gamiton pabor
kanimo or batok kanimo sa bisan asa nga
korte. Ikaw adunay katungod sa pagpili ug
abogado ug di ka aka-afford, and
gobyerno mohatag ug usa ka abogado
para moasistar kanimo.” (You are being
arrested for the offense of selling illegal

15
BRIEF FOR THE APPELLEE
People vs. Tinapay
CA-G.R. CEB CR-HC No. 02376
x- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -x

drugs. You have the right to remain silent.

Anything you say can be used against you
in any courts of law. You have the right to
choose your own counsel. If you cannot
afford one, the government will provide
you with one to assist you.)

Question = Did he understand?

Answer = Yes ma’am.

Question = What did he say?

Answer = I looked at him and he nodded his head

and he raised his eyebrows.

Question = So after you gave his rights, what did you

do next?

Answer = PO3 Dipaling conducted a body search,

ma’am.

Question = And what was the result of the body

search?

Answer = He recovered the three (3) pieces One

Hundred Peso (P100.00) bills.

xxx xxx xxx6

15. Be that as it may, it is clear from the above-

quoted testimony that the prosecution sufficiently
established the identity of the buyer and the seller. Accused-
appellant Tinapay was the seller, and PO3 Mananquil was
the poseur-buyer. The object of the transaction were the
heat sealed transparent plastic sachet of methamphetamine
hydrochloride marked with “EAT-BB-2-18-15” (Exhibit “D”),
and the consideration was the marked money of three One
(1) Hundred Pesos (Exhibit “L”, “M”, “N”). Both such object
and consideration have been sufficiently established by
testimonial and documentary evidence presented by the
prosecution.

6
TSN dated May 23, 2016, pp. 6-19.

16
BRIEF FOR THE APPELLEE
People vs. Tinapay
CA-G.R. CEB CR-HC No. 02376
x- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -x

16. Besides, PO2 Melendrez’ testimony was

corroborated on material points by PO3 Dipaling. Verily, the
trial court correctly found that prosecution witnesses were
able to establish that there was consummated sale of illegal
drugs on the part of the accused-appellant.

17. Insisting he committed no violation of R.A. No.

9165, appellant contends that the existence of the
dangerous drug, which is a condition sine qua non for
conviction was not established7, that a substantial gap in the
chain of custody renders the identity and integrity of the
corpus delicti dubious8, and that there is insufficient
compliance with the mandatory procedures of R.A. No. 9165
and its implementing rules9.

18. The Honorable Court should not be swayed.

19. The accused-appellant’s assertion that the

dangerous drug obtained from him is highly questionable
does not have a leg to stand on. From the testimony of PO3
Dipaling which corroborated the statements of PO3
Mananquil, it is clearly established that the marked money
of three (3) One Hundred Pesos (Exhibit “L”, “M”, “N”) was
searched from the accused-appellant. Noteworthy is such
fact because the said money cannot be found in possession
of accused-appellant if it had not been for the dangerous
drug given to PO3 Dipaling. There is no showing in the
records that there is another purpose of, aside from the sale
of dangerous drug, accused-appellant Eddie’s meeting with
PO3 Mananquil as the poseur buyer and receiving of the buy
bust money from the latter on the day of February 18, 2015.
No previous legal transaction or relationship between the
herein poseur-buyer and accused-appellant was established
by the evidence of the defense. Based on human experience,
it is absurd that a stranger would receive a considerable
amount of money without giving anything in exchange for it

7
Accused-appellant’s Brief, p. 9
8
Accused-appellant’s Brief, p. 16.
9
Accused-appellant’s Brief, p. 17.

17
BRIEF FOR THE APPELLEE
People vs. Tinapay
CA-G.R. CEB CR-HC No. 02376
x- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -x

or unless it is a consideration for the sale of a particular

thing. It is clearly established that the plastic sachet
containing the dangerous drug placed in the sling bag of PO3
Mananquil after giving the buy bust money, came from the
accused-appellant. Thus, the existence of the dangerous
drug, the corpus delicti, received from the accused-appellant
Tinapay is unquestionable which is the foundation of his
conviction.

20. The place of the illegal sale of the dangerous drug

does not incite doubt on the commission of the crime. The
prevalence of the sale of illegal drugs in the country is of
public knowledge and such sale can take place either inside
or outside of a criminal’s abode. Long line of jurisprudence10
ruling on the conviction of accused persons show that
consummated sale of illegal drugs commonly happened
outside the house of the convicts, even in public market.
Thus, it is not contrary to human experience that the sale in
this case, took place just 15 to 20 meters away from the
abode of accused-appellant Tinapay.

21. Accused-appellant’s contention that the buy bust

operation was invalid because it was conducted without
warrant of arrest is bereft of merit. The Supreme Court
explained in People vs Marcelino11 why buy-bust
operation was a circumstance where a warrantless arrest is
justified under Rule 113, Sec. 5(a) of the Rules of Court:

x x x When carried out with due regard for

constitutional and legal safeguards, it is a judicially
sanctioned method of apprehending those involved in
illegal drug activities. It is a valid form of entrapment,
as the idea to commit a crime comes not from the
police officers but from the accused himself. The
accused is caught in the act and must be
apprehended on the spot. From the very nature of a
buy-bust operation, the absence of a warrant does
not make the arrest illegal.

10
People vs Lopez, G.R. No. 221465, November 16, 2016; People vs Pacleb, G.R. No. 90602, January 18,
1993; People vs Basal, G.R. No.. 215714, August 12, 2015;
11
G.R. No. 189278, July 28, 2010.

18
BRIEF FOR THE APPELLEE
People vs. Tinapay
CA-G.R. CEB CR-HC No. 02376
x- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -x

The illegal drug seized was not the fruit of the

poisonous tree as the defense would like this Court
to believe. The seizure made by the buy-bust team falls
under a search incidental to a lawful arrest under Rule
126, Sec. 13 of the Rules of Court x x x 12

22. Since the buy-bust operation was established as

legitimate, it follows that the search was also valid, and a
warrant was likewise not needed to conduct it. Thus, the
dangerous drug seized from accused-appellant was not a
fruit of the poisonous tree and can be validly admitted as
evidence against him.

23. Besides, in contrast to the overwhelming evidence

of the prosecution, accused-appellant Tinapay merely raised
the defense of denial. The defense of denial and frame up
are inherently weak defenses and have always been viewed
upon with disfavor by the courts due to the ease with which
it can be concocted. As a defense, denial crumbles in the
light of positive identification of the appellant, as in this
case. The defense of denial assumes significance only when
the prosecution’s evidence is such that it does not prove
guilt beyond reasonable doubt, which is not the case here.
Verily, mere denial, unsubstantiated by clear and convincing
evidence, is negative self-serving evidence which cannot be
given greater evidentiary weight than the testimony of the
prosecution witness who testified on affirmative matters. 13

24. To stress, in cases involving violations of the

Dangerous Drugs Act, credence should be given to the
narration of the incident by the prosecution witnesses,
especially when they are police officers who are presumed to
have performed their duties in a regular manner, unless
there is evidence to the contrary. Moreover, in the absence
of proof of motive to falsely impute such a serious crime
against the appellant, the presumption of regularity in the
performance of official duty, as well as the findings of the

12
Emphasis supplied.
13
People v. Rom, G.R. No. 198452, February 19, 2014.

19
BRIEF FOR THE APPELLEE
People vs. Tinapay
CA-G.R. CEB CR-HC No. 02376
x- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -x

trial court on the credibility of witnesses, shall prevail over

petitioner’s self-serving and uncorroborated denial.14

25. Anent accused appellant Tinapay’s contention that

the integrity of the seized evidence was not preserved, the
trial court correctly found that there was an unbroken chain
of custody of the seized items in this case and the integrity
and evidentiary value thereof were preserved.

26. Section 21(1), Article II of R.A. No. 9165 provides

the procedure for the handling of seized or confiscated illegal
drugs:

Section 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 drugs shall,
immediately after seizure and confiscation,
physically inventory 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, a
representative from the media and the
Department of Justice (DOJ), and any elected
public official who shall be required to sign the
copies of the inventory and be given a copy
thereof; x x x

14
People v. Dela Rosa, G.R. No. 185166, January 26, 2011.

20
BRIEF FOR THE APPELLEE
People vs. Tinapay
CA-G.R. CEB CR-HC No. 02376
x- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -x

27. Section 1(b) of Dangerous Drugs Board Regulation

No. 1, Series of 2002 which implements R.A. No. 9165
nonetheless explains the said term, as follows:

"Chain of Custody" means the duly recorded

authorized movements and custody of seized drugs or
controlled chemicals or plant sources of dangerous drugs
or laboratory equipment of each stage, from the time of
seizure/confiscation to receipt in the forensic laboratory to
safekeeping to presentation in court for destruction. Such
record of movements and custody of seized item shall
include the identity and signature of the person who held
temporary custody of the seized item, the date and time
when such transfer of custody were made in the course of
safekeeping and use in court as evidence, and the final
disposition.

28. The purpose of the requirement of proof of the

chain of custody is to ensure that the integrity and
evidentiary value of the seized drug are preserved, as thus
dispel unnecessary doubts as to the identity of the evidence.
To be admissible, the prosecution must establish by records
or testimony the continuous whereabouts of the exhibit,
from the time it came into the possession of the police
officers, until it was tested in the laboratory to determine its
composition, and all the way to the time it was offered in
evidence.15

29. In Mallillin v. People,16 it was held that the chain

of custody rule requires that there be testimony about every
link in the chain, from the moment the object seized was
picked up to the time it was offered in evidence, in such a
way that every person who touched it would describe how
and from whom it was received, where it was and what
happened to it while in the possession of the witness, the
condition in which it was received and the condition in which
it was delivered to the next link in the chain.

15
Ibid.
16
553 SCRA 619 (2008).

21
BRIEF FOR THE APPELLEE
People vs. Tinapay
CA-G.R. CEB CR-HC No. 02376
x- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -x

30. In this case, it is clear that the prosecution was

able to provide all the facts necessary to establish adherence
to the chain of custody rule. The records show that after
receiving from the accused-apellant one heat-sealed
transparent plastic sachet containing the dangerous drug,
PO3 Mananquil placed a missed call, which is a pre-arranged
signal, to their team leader and the latter instructed PO3
Dipaling and the rest of the buy bust team to rush where
PO3 Mananquil was. When accused-appellant Eddie saw
them coming, he attempted to run but quickly grabbed by
PO3 Mananquil. With the help of PO3 Dipaling, the accused-
appellant was eventually subdued. PO3 Mananquil placed the
accused-appellant in handcuffs, informed him of his
authority as a police officer then arrested him in the Visayan
dialect for selling illegal drugs and accused’s appellant’s
constitutional rights in a way that the latter understood.
Then, PO3 Dipaling conducted a body search on the
accused-appellant of which he was able to recover three (3)
pieces of one hundred peso (P100.00) bills buy bust money
from the latter. At the crime scene, PO3 Mananquil marked
the one (1) heat sealed transparent plastic sachet containing
the white crystalline substance that he has earlier taken
from the accused-appellant Tinapay with initials “EAT-BB-2-
18-15”. He also conducted an inventory of all the items
bought, seized and confiscated during the buy-bust
operation in the presence of the accused as well as the
required witnesses who were called for the purpose and had
arrived by then. PO3 Mananquil prepared a
Receipt/Inventory of Property Seized which he signed as
17

the seizing officer/evidence custodian. The same document

was signed by Barangay Cangmating Kagawad Claudio
Ramos, media practitioner Jufill Mira and DOJ representative
Andres Mangubat. SPO4 Rhuel Tan Piñero also signed the
document as the team leader/supervisor of the operation
while PO3 Dipaling signed the same as the photographer,
having taken the photographs during the conduct of the
inventory. After finishing the inventory, the entire buy-bust
team proceeded to the Sibulan Police Station for proper
documentation and disposition of the case. They also bought
with them accused Tinapay as well as all the items bought,

17
Exh H, Record. p. 7.

22
BRIEF FOR THE APPELLEE
People vs. Tinapay
CA-G.R. CEB CR-HC No. 02376
x- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -x

seized and confiscated from him during the buy-bust. PO3

Mananquil placed the one (1) heat-sealed transparent plastic
sachet marked as “EAT-BB-2-18-15” inside a brown
evidence envelope which he tape-sealed and signed. PO3
Mananquil kept sole possession and control of this brown
envelope at all times. At the police station, a Memorandum
Request for Laboratory Examination and Drug Test18, both
signed by SPO4 Piñero, addressed to the Chief of the Crime
Laboratory, Province of Negros Oriental, Dumaguete City,
was prepared. Armed with the memorandum request, PO3
Mananquil brought the brown evidence envelope containing
the one heat-sealed transparent plastic sachet as well as the
accused Tinapay to the crime laboratory for examination and
drug test. At the crime laboratory, it was duty officer PO2
Robert John Pama who received from PO3 Mananquil as
1512H or 3:12 in the afternoon of February 18, 2015 the
one (1) tape-sealed brown envelope containing one (1)
heat-sealed transparent plastic sachet with markings “EAT-
BB-2-18-15” with signature, containing white crystalline
substance as indicated in the memorandum request he
received. PO2 Pama checked whether the items he received
jibed with the items listed down in the memorandum request
also received. After ascertaining that the same tallied, PO2
Pama returned the plastic sachet inside the brown envelope
with masking tape. Later, at 1520H or 3:20 in the afternoon
of the same day, PO2 Pama submitted the said brown
evidence envelope to PCI Llena who had arrived by then.
Upon receipt of the items from PO2 Pama as listed in the
memorandum request, PCI Llena immediately assigned
these with her examiner’s markings as follows: as Specimen
“A” D-069-15 JSL for the tape-sealed brown envelope and as
Specimen “A-1” for the one (1) heat-sealed transparent
plastic sachet with markings “EAT-BB-2-18-15”, with
signature, containing white crystalline substance. PCI Llena
determined the net weight of Specimen “A-1” and recorded
it to contain 0.08 gram of white crystalline substance. PCI
Llena then conducted a qualitative examination on Specimen
“A-1” which gave positive result to the tests for
Methamphetamine Hydrochloride, a dangerous drug under
R.A. No. 9165. Her findings and conclusions were embodied
in her submitted Chemistry Report No. D-069-1519. Prior to
18
Exh A, Record, p. 1.
19
Exh B, Record, p. 2.

23
BRIEF FOR THE APPELLEE
People vs. Tinapay
CA-G.R. CEB CR-HC No. 02376
x- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -x

her submission to this court of the specimen she received

and examined on February 18, 2015, PCI Llena kept the
same in the evidence vault of the crime laboratory of which
she has the only access to.

31. The foregoing shows that the persons who took

custody of the confiscated items were all documented and
accounted for by the prosecution. Their account during the
trial of what transpired after the drugs were seized and
details of its transfer from one person to another until it
reached the crime laboratory for examination and presented
in court shows that the integrity of the confiscated drugs
was not compromised. All these show an unbroken chain of
custody and proved that the evidence seized were the same
evidence tested and subsequently identified and testified to
in court.

32. Noteworthy also is that jurisprudence explains the

sufficiency of the substantial compliance to the chain of
custody requirement as long as the integrity and evidentiary
value of the seized item are properly preserved by the
apprehending officers.20 In People vs Badilla21, the
Supreme Court reiterated their decision in a number of
cases regarding substantial compliance to the marking
requirement:

We ruled that the marking and inventory of

the seized items at the police station
immediately after the arrival thereat of the
police officers, as in this case, were in
accordance with the law, its implementing rules
and regulations, and relevant jurisprudence.
Also, the failure to photograph and conduct physical
inventory of the seized items is not fatal to the case
against the accused and does not ipso facto render
inadmissible in evidence the items seized. What is
important is that the seized item marked at the
police station is identified as the same item

20
People vs Morato, G.R. No. 201156, January 29, 2014, citing People vs Langcua, G.R. No. 190343,
February 06, 2013
21
G.R. No. 218578, August 31, 2016 citing People v. Yable, G.R. No. 200358, April 7, 2014.

24
BRIEF FOR THE APPELLEE
People vs. Tinapay
CA-G.R. CEB CR-HC No. 02376
x- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -x

produced in court.22

33. Moreover, accused-appellant Tinapay’s contention

that the evidence should be inadmissible for failure of the
police officers to strictly comply with the law does not hold
water. In Zalameda vs. People,23 the Supreme Court held
that failure of the police officers to strictly comply with Sec.
21(1), Art. II of R.A. No. 9165 does not necessarily render
an accused’s arrest illegal or the items seized or confiscated
from him inadmissible. What is of utmost importance is the
preservation of the integrity and the evidentiary value of the
seized items, as these would be utilized in the determination
of the guilt or innocence of the accused.

34. In People v. Del Monte,24 the Supreme Court

explained:
We would like to add that non-compliance with
Section 21 of said law, particularly the making of the
inventory and the photographing of the drugs confiscated
and/or seized, will not render the drugs inadmissible in
evidence. Under Section 3 of Rule 128 of the Rules of Court,
evidence is admissible when it is relevant to the issue and is
not excluded by the law or these rules. For evidence to be
inadmissible, there should be a law or rule which forbids its
reception. If there is no such law or rule, the evidence must
be admitted subject only to the evidentiary weight that will
accorded it by the courts.

xxx xxx xxx

We do not find any provision or statement in said law

or in any rule that will bring about the non-admissibility of
the confiscated and/or seized drugs due to non-compliance
with Section 21 of Republic Act No. 9165. The issue
therefore, if there is non-compliance with said section, is
not of admissibility, but of weight – evidentiary merit or
probative value – to be given the evidence. The weight to
be given by the courts on said evidence depends on the
circumstances obtaining in each case.

22
Emphasis supplied.
23
G.R. No. 183656, September 4, 2009.
24
G.R. No. 179940, April 23, 2008.

25
BRIEF FOR THE APPELLEE
People vs. Tinapay
CA-G.R. CEB CR-HC No. 02376
x- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -x

35. In People vs. Loreto Daria,25 citing People v.

Agulay,26 the Supreme Court reiterated the doctrine that
the failure of police officers to strictly follow the procedure
set forth under Section 21(1), Article II of the Implementing
Rules and Regulations of R.A. No. 9165, did not invalidate
the seizure and custody of confiscated items during the buy-
bust operation viz:

The dissent agreed with accused-appellant’s assertion

that the police operatives failed to comply with the proper
procedure in the custody of the seized drugs. It premised
that non-compliance with the procedure in Section
21(a), Article II of the Implementing Rules and
Regulations of Republic Act No. 9165 creates an
irregularity and overcomes the presumption of
regularity accorded police authorities in the
performance of their official duties. This assumption is
without merit.

First, it must be made clear that in several cases

decided by the Court, failure by the buy-bust team to
comply with said section did not prevent the
presumption of regularity in the performance of duty
from applying.
Second, even prior to the enactment of R.A.
9165, the requirements contained in Section 21(a)
were already there per Dangerous Drugs Board
Regulation No. 3, Series of 1979. Despite the
presence of such regulation and its non-compliance
by the buy-bust team, the Court still applied such
presumption. We held:

“The failure of the arresting police officers

to comply with said DDB Regulation No. 3,
Series of 1979 is a matter strictly between the
Dangerous Drugs Board and the arresting
officers and is totally irrelevant to the
prosecution of the criminal case for the reason
that the commission of the crime of illegal sale
of a prohibited drug is considered consummated
once the sale or transaction is established and
the prosecution thereof is not undermined by
the failure of the arresting officers to comply
with the regulations of the Dangerous Drugs
Board.”

25
G.R. No. 186138, September 11, 2009.
26
566 SCRA 571 (2008).

26
BRIEF FOR THE APPELLEE
People vs. Tinapay
CA-G.R. CEB CR-HC No. 02376
x- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -x

xxx xxx xxx

Moreover, non-compliance with the procedure

outlined in Section 21(a), Article II of the
Implementing Rules and Regulations of Republic Act
No. 9165, shall not render void and invalid such
seizures of and custody over said items, for as long as
the integrity and evidentiary value of the seized items are
properly preserved by the apprehending officers.27

36. As to the presumption of regularity, such works

against accused-appellant Tinapay. The integrity of the
evidence is presumed to be preserved unless there is a
showing of bad faith, ill will, or proof that the evidence has
been tampered with. Appellant in this case has the burden
to show that the evidence was tampered or meddled with to
overcome a presumption of regularity in the handling of
exhibits by public officers and a presumption that public
officers properly discharged their duties.23 In this case, other
than accused-appellant’s bare allegation, he has not
adduced any proof that PO3 Mananquil and the police
officers failed to properly discharge their duties. Neither has
he shown that the seized sachet and drug paraphernalia in
this case have been tampered with. Having failed to
discharge this burden, appellant’s contention on this issue
must be disregarded.

37. Moreover, upon careful study and scrutiny of the

evidence presented by the prosecution and the defense, the
trial court adjudged accused-appellant as guilty beyond
reasonable doubt. Certainly, it has been ruled by the
Supreme Court that after a person has been tried and
convicted, the presumption of innocence which may be
relied upon in prior applications is rebutted, and the burden
is upon the accused to show error in the conviction. 28 Thus,
after trial court convicted the accused-appellant, the
presumption of innocence on him ceased.

27
Emphasis supplied.
28
Leviste vs People, G.R. No. 189122, March 17, 2010. citing Obosa vs Court of Appeals, G.R. No.
114350, January 16, 1997.

27
BRIEF FOR THE APPELLEE
People vs. Tinapay
CA-G.R. CEB CR-HC No. 02376
x- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -x

38. Full faith and credence are given to the narration

of law enforcers who testify for the prosecution because as
such, they are presumed to have regularly performed their
duties.29 This presumption is overturned only if there is clear
and convincing evidence that the officers were not properly
performing their duty or that they were inspired by improper
motive.30 By means of an affirmative evidence of irregularity
or of any failure to perform a duty that this presumption of
regularity of performance of official duty would be
rebuttable.31 As long as there is no showing in the records
any reason by which to doubt the proper and regular
conduct of official duty, the presumption of regularity of
performance of duty should be upheld.32

39. In view of the above disquisitions, it is respectfully

submitted that the prosecution has proven the guilt of the
accused-appellant beyond reasonable doubt and the trial
court did not err in convicting him as charged. Perforce, his
conviction should be affirmed.

PRAYER

WHEREFORE, it is respectfully prayed that the instant

appeal be DISMISSED for lack of merit.

Other forms of relief that are just and equitable under

the premises are likewise prayed for.

Makati City for the City of Manila, July 20, 2017.

JOSE C. CALIDA
Solicitor General
Roll No. 24852
29
People vs Pasion, G.R. No. 203026, January 28, 2015.
30
Id.
31
People vs Mendoza, G.R. No. 192432, June 23, 2014.
32
Id.

28
BRIEF FOR THE APPELLEE
People vs. Tinapay
CA-G.R. CEB CR-HC No. 02376
x- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -x

IBP Lifetime No. 015360

MCLE Exemption No. VI-000016 (9.28.16)

MARIA HAZEL P. VALDEZ-ACANTILADO

Assistant Solicitor General
Roll No. 43682
IBP Lifetime No. 02780
MCLE Compliance No. V-0011825 (11.10.15)

JOJO C. CRUZAT
State Solicitor
Roll No. 52845
IBP Lifetime No. 961203
MCLE Compliance No. V-0011853 (11.10.15)

OFFICE OF THE SOLICITOR GENERAL

134 Amorsolo St., Legaspi Village, Makati City
Trunkline No. (02) 988-1674
Fax No. (02) 813-4565

Copy furnished:

Attys. Maria G-Ree R. Calinawan, Sylvia A. Aguipo-

Luna, Lyndon D. Falcon, Albert T. Vasquez
Public Attorney’s Office
Special and Appealed Cases Service
5th Floor, DOJ Agencies Building
NIA Road corner East Avenue
Diliman, Quezon City

The Presiding Judge

RTC-Branch 30, Dumaguete City

EXPLANATION
(Pursuant to Section 11, Rule 13
of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure)

29
BRIEF FOR THE APPELLEE
People vs. Tinapay
CA-G.R. CEB CR-HC No. 02376
x- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -x

The foregoing Brief for the Appellee is being served by

registered mail, personal service not being practicable due
to lack of adequate personnel to effect the same.

JOJO C. CRUZAT
State Solicitor

30