Republic of the Philippines

REGIONAL TRIAL COURT

Ninth Judicial Region
Zamboanga City
Branch 3

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES,

Plaintiff,

-versus- Criminal Case No. 1-345 and 12-346

For: Violation of Sec. 5 and 11 of
R.A. No. 9165

JOSE “BEBE” DELA CRUZ,

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

PROSECUTION’S MEMORANDUM

The People of the Philippines, as represented by undersigned counsel,

to this Honorable Court, most respectfully submit this memorandum.

PREPARATORY STATEMENT

1. This case stemmed from the warrantless arrest over the person of
the accused and the confiscation of methamphetamine hydrochloride or
“shabu” during the buy-bust operation conducted on December 9, 2014 by
the buy-bust team headed by PO2 Edgardo Santos.

2. The accused, through counsel, moved to quash the information,

which was denied by the court.

3. Upon the resting of the case of the prosecution, the accused filed a
Motion for Leave of Court to File a Demurrer to Evidence which was also
denied by the court.

STATEMENT OF FACTS

1. PO2 Junie Tan, received an anonymous tip that the accused Jose
“Bebe” Dela Cruz was engaged in the prohibited trade of selling narcotics.
This prompted PO2 Tan to conduct investigation, subsequently a buy-bust
team was created composed of elements of the Philippine National Police
(PNP), namely: PO2 Edgardo Santos as the team leader and arresting officer,
PO2 Rasul Munib as poser buyer and PO2 Juanito Chua as seizing officer;

2. On December 9, 2014, the buy-bust operation was conducted which

led to the arrest over the person of the accused and the confiscation of
methamphetamine hydrochloride otherwise known as “shabu”;
1
 3. Within twenty-four (24) hours, as required by RA 9165, the
accused was brought in to the custody of the PNP for purposes of conducting
the necessary tests over the person of the accused and the confiscated items,
and the booking of the arrest of the accused;

4. After the prosecution had rested its case accused through counsel
filed a Motion for Leave of Court to file Demurrer to evidence arguing that
the integrity of the very corpus delicti is tainted with irregularities for the
alleged wanton of due care of the elements of the PNP in failing to sign the
documents relevant to the chain of custody of the corpus delicti thereby
rendering the same inadmissible as evidence to show proof beyond
reasonable doubt that the accused is guilty of the crime charged against him,
which was denied by the court;

5. Further, the accused contends that no proper surveillance was

conducted stating that the short period of eight (8) days is not enough in
determining the identity of the accused based on an anonymous tip received
by their office.

6. Accused thereafter asserts the irregularity of the composition of the

buy-bust team by citing provisions of the Manual of the PNP Anti-Illegal
Drugs Special Operations Task Force approved by Resolution No. 2010-094,
which the accused contends that the manual requires that a team of eight (8)
members must be present in the team;

7. Lastly, accused through counsel presented one Greg Ledesma as his

sole witness who testified that the events that occurred on December 9, 2014
was, allegedly, a set-up or frame-up by the elements of the PNP by means of
force and intimidation to get the accused to hold the confiscated items which
eventually led to the detention of the accused;

DISCUSSIONS AND ARGUMENTS

1. The issue of the chain of custody of the very corpus delicti of the
crime charged against the accused, it has been held in the long line of
Supreme Court decisions such as People of the Philippines vs. Del Monte
held that:
“xxx what is of utmost importance is the preservation of the
integrity and evidentiary value of the seized items, as the same would
be utilized in the determination of the guilt or innocence of the
accused. To be admissible, the prosecution must show by records or
testimony, the continuous whereabouts of the exhibit at least between
the time it came into the possession of the police officers and until it
was tested in the laboratory to determine its composition up to the
time it was offered in evidence.” (Emphasis ours)

The records of the case will show that the accused never raised as an issue
whether or not the corpus delicti of the case went to the possession of other
2
persons other that those names appearing in the Chain of Custody Form
presented by the prosecution and adopted by the accused.

The contention of the accused that due to the lack of the signatures of
those who handled the evidences diminishes the integrity of the same is of
no merit, jurisprudence states that the minimum requirement for the
determination of the integrity and the evidentiary value of the seized items
presented in drugs cases are the testimonies of those who had possession of
the same from the time of seizing, testing in the laboratory and offering the
same as evidence in court.

The witnesses of the prosecution have met this requirement thus it

cannot be said that the prosecution has failed to comply with the
requirements relative to the presentment as evidence of the seized items;

2. As the Supreme Court decided in Quinicot vs. People of the

Philippines, the court held that:

“There is no textbook method of conducting buy-bust

operations. The Court has left to the discretion of police authorities
the selection of effective means to apprehend drug dealers. A prior
surveillance, much less a lengthy one is not necessary.”(Emphasis
ours)

Therefore, the contention of the accused that the buy-bust team which
operated on December 9, 2014, being incomplete and does not have the
capacity to conduct the operation and that same did not conduct the
necessary surveillance is of no merit;

3. The issue raised by the accused on the Team Composition of the

buy-bust team, pursuant to the Operations Manual of the PNP Anti-Illegal
Drugs Special Operations Task Force is of no merit.

The wordings of the abovementioned manual, more particularly Rule

III, Section 19, paragraph i uses the word “may” in relation to the
composition of the buy-bust team prior to the operation takes place.

Necessarily the word “may” as used in the manual is permissive and

not mandatory. The team leader has full discretion in the composition of the
team and the delegation of the duties of each of the members of the buy-bust
team. Ergo, it is out of question that the team leader, in this case PO2
Edgardo Santos, has full discretion as to the number and the specific roles of
the members of the buy-bust team.

4. Finally, the denial of the witness of the accused of the validity or

existence of the bus-bust operation conducted on December 9, 2014 is of no
merit.

3
 Denial without substantial evidence to support it, cannot overcome the
presumption of regularity of the police officers’ performance of official
functions. The Supreme Court, in People vs. Dela Cruz, held that:

“credence should be given to the narration of the incident by the

prosecutions witness especially when they are police officers. xxx
Moreover, in the absence of proof of motive to falsely impute such a
serious crime xxx the presumption of regularity in the performance of
official duty xxx shall prevail over the appellant’s (in this case the
accused) self-serving and uncorroborated denial.”

PRAYER

WHEREFORE, premises considered the prosecution respectfully

prays that judgment be rendered declaring the accused guilty beyond
reasonable doubt of the crimes charged against him.

Respectfully submitted, March 24, 2015, Zamboanga City.

ATTY. JORDACHE L. RAMOS

Assistant City Prosecutor
Hall of Justice, Zamboanga City
IBP No.: xxxxxxxxx
PTR No.: xxxxxxxxx
MCLE Compliance No.: xxxxxx

Copy Furnished:

Atty. Bensaud Degusman

Counsel for the Accused

Clerk of Court
RTC Branch 3, Zamboanga City