Court Appeal Brief for Accused in Illegal Drug Sale Case

REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES
COURT OF APPEALS
MANILA
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES,

Plaintiff/Appellee/s.
CA-G.R. CR NO. HC-08934
RTC BR. 18, BATAC CITY
-versus- ILOCOS NORTE
RTC CASE NO. 4802-18
For: VIOL. OF SEC. 5,
ART II OF R.A. 9165
ELPIDIO VALENTE @ ELFIE
Accused/Appellant.
x------------------------------------------x
APPEAL BRIEF FOR ACCUSED-APPELLANT
ACCUSED-APPELLANT, through the undersigned counsel

and before this Honorable Court respectfully files the foregoing brief:
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
This is a prosecution for Violation of Section 5, of Republic Act

No. 9165 (Illegal Sale of Dangerous Drugs) allegedly committed as
follows:
That on or about August 19, 2011, in the afternoon, in

Brgy. Pias Norte, Currimao, Ilocos Norte, Philippines and
within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the above-
named accused, did then and there willfully, unlawfully,
feloniously and knowingly sell one (1) pc of heat-sealed
transparent plastic sachet containing white crystalline
granules otherwise known as shabu, a dangerous drug,
weighing 0.0131 gram to a police poseur buyer in a buy
bust operation, without authority or license to sell the
same from the appropriate government agency.
When the accused was arraigned, he pleaded NOT GUILTY.

The trial commenced with the prosecution witnesses who presented
police poseur buyer PO2 Elison Pasamonte and arresting officer PO2
Dennis Ramos. On the other hand, the defense presented Elpidio
Valente and Dante Tabin.
3
STATEMENT OF FACTS
Version of the Prosecution
Evidence of the prosecution sought to present a buy-bust case.
In the morning of August 19, 2011, a confidential informant

personally reported to PAIDSOTG Action Officer P/Insp. Joseph R.
Baltazar (P/Insp. Baltazar) regarding the illegal activities of the
accused. Allegedly, the informant was a regular customer of the
accused, Elpidio Valente (Valente).
On the basis of the said report, P/Insp. Baltazar proceeded to

plan a buy-bust operation against the accused. During the briefing,
PO1 Elison Pasamonte (PO1 Pasamonte) was designated as poseur-
buyer who will be accompanied by the confidential informant in
transacting with the accused in buying shabu worth P1,000.00 while
PO2 Christopher Pola (PO2 Pola) and PO2 Dennis Ramos (PO2
Ramos) will serve as immediate back-up and arresting officers,
strategically positioning themselves 100 meters from the agreed area
of transaction which was along the National Hi-Way of Pias Norte,
Currimao. It was also agreed that the pre-arranged signal would be a
ring on P/Insp. Baltazars phone from PO1 Pasamonte.
Thereafter, the team proceeded to the Currimao Police Station

to coordinate with the PNP Currimao led by Chief of Police Ryan
Retotar (Chief Retotar) and to request for additional back-up.
Thereafter, both the buy-bust team led by P/Insp. Baltazar and the
PNP Currimao led by Chief Retotar proceeded to agreed place of
transaction particularly in front of the Betsy Carinderia near the Pias
Gaang Bridge. Upon arriving, Pasamonte and the informant casually
walked towards the house of the accused which is interior and far
from the said highway. Meanwhile, the back-up team positioned
themselves about 100 meters away and along the National Highway.
Reaching the subject house, the informant saw the accused

sitting at the terrace of his bungalow house. After a short
conversation, the informant introduced Pasamonte as friend who was
in need of illegal drugs worth P1,000.00. The accused then told them
to wait and went inside their house to get the shabu. After a few
minutes, the accused came back and asked for the payment. PO1
Pasamonte then handed over the buy-bust money to Valente as
payment. Valente, in turn, drew one piece of heat-sealed transparent
4
plastic sachet containing shabu and handed it to PO1 Pasamonte.
Valente thereafter put the money on his right front pocket. After
inspecting the plastic sachet, PO1 Pasamonte put the same in his
pocket and reached for his phone to execute the pre-arranged signal.
Responding to the pre-arranged signal, PO2 Ramos and PO2

Pola rushed towards the house forty seconds later and announced
that they were policemen. Seeing them, Valente tried to run away but
he was eventually caught. PO2 Ramos immediately handcuffed him
and informed him of his constitutional rights. Afterwhich, PO1
Pasamonte frisked Valente and recovered the two marked 500-peso
bills. The apprehending officers then marked, inventoried and
photographed the seized items in front Valente. Thereafter, the seized
drugs were then brought and submitted to the Ilocos Norte Crime
Laboratory through a Request for Laboratory Examination1 prepared
and signed by P/Insp. Baltazar. Said Request showed that the seized
drug was delivered by PO1 Pasamonte and received by P/Insp.
Roanalaine Baligod (P/Insp. Baligod) at around 5:25 pm on August
19, 2011.
For P/Insp. Baligod testimony, it was stipulated by the

prosecution and the defense that she received from PO1 Pasamonte
the Request and the seized drugs for examination. She recorded the
same in their logbook and placed a rubberstamp mark. She physically
examined the specimen and conducted an initial laboratory
examination on it which yielded a positive result as reflected in her
Initial Laboratory Report2. Subsequently, she conducted a
confirmatory test and reflected her finding in Chemistry Report No.
D-039-20113, and that she sealed the specimen with a masking tape
and placed her personal markings and turned it over to the Evidence
custodian. It was further stipulated that she turned-over the seized
drugs to SPO2 Teodoro Flojo (SPO2 Flojo). In turn, SPO2 Flojo
brought the said item, to the Court to be marked as evidence.
Version of the Defense
On the other hand, accused Elpidio Valente denied that a buy-

bust operation was conducted against him and alleged that he was
framed by the policemen to get back at him for his previous acquittal
in 2003 in a drug-related case involving the elements of PNP
Currimao.
1
Exhibit G of the records.
2
Exhibit H of the records.
3
Exhibit I of the records.
5
He recalled that on August 19, 2011 at around 3:00 pm, he was
lying at the swing of their neighbors house when he noticed a patrol
arrived at the back of his house.4 After about two minutes, and while
he was still lying on the swing, he heard a dog bark on two men who
were about seven meters away. He noticed that they were holding a
baby armalite and a short firearm.5 He recognized one of these men
as PO1 Elison Pasamonte. Thereafter, said men asked permission to
pass by in going to an adjacent place, who then surrounded Valentes
house.6 He later saw Chief Retotar approaching from one side.
Likewise, he also saw P/Insp. Baltazar.7
Chief Retotar recognized Valente and told his companions

prompting PO1 Pasamonte to go back and Valente was arrested by
PO1 Pasamonte and PO2 Pola8. After handcuffing him, PO1
Pasamonte and PO2 Pola conducted body search but they were
unable to get anything.9 Thereafter, they made him sit on a bamboo
chair at his neighbors house. PO1 Pasamonte communicated to
P/Insp. Baltazar that they found nothing to which the latter
responded while, Daytoy man ti kunak ta agibagbagada ti awan ti
kinapudno na isu nga haan tay nga marigatan ngamin (That is what I
have been, they are telling untrue things.) Retotar, on the other hand,
left.10
Meanwhile, PO1 Pasamonte asked P/Inspt. Baltazar whether

he will be brought to Laoag City and the latter said that they will
leave the accused at the Currimao Police Station and that it would be
up for him to talk. It was then that the accused called for barangay
officials, five of whom arrived.11 Nonetheless, he was taken to the
Currimao Police Station and incarcerated while the barangay officials
were left behind.12
At the police station, the apprehending officers told him, We

will just leave you here, Manong. And whatever will be the discretion
of the Chief of Police, he might not be brought to Lang-ayan
anymore. Later, when he asked Chief Retotar why they arrested
him, the latter answered, I have warned you before that if they will
4
Testimony of Elpidio Valente, TSN, September 9, 2015, p. 5
5
Id.
6
TSN, September 9, 2015, p. 5-6
7
Id.
8
TSN, September 9, 2015, pp. 6-7
9
TSN, September 9, 2015, p. 7
10
11
TSN, September 9, 2015, pp. 8-9
12
6
not be able to take everything from you, the next time, I will put you
to jail because before this, you were acquitted on a certain case.13
The accused insists that he could never have sold shabu to

Pasamonte given the fact that he had already known him as a
policeman prior to the subject incident.
Dante Tabin, a neighbor of the accused, was also presented as

a witness of the defense. He recalled that at around 3:00 P.M. of
August 19, 2011 he saw four armed men walking out of the house of
the accused while he and his son were on their way home.14 As these
men were walking, he heard Chief Retotar shouted the name of
Elpidio Valente who was then merely standing at the side of the river
which is about thirty five (35) to forty (40) meters away from the
house of Valente.15 Afterwards, the two companions of Chief Retotar
ran towards Valente, poked him with a gun and then handcuffed
him. They frisked the accused and after looking into his wallet, they
uttered Awan met (Theres nothing.)16 Noticing the presence of
Tabin, the policemen told him to go away and so he left as ordered.17
ASSIGNMENT OF ERRORS
I
THE HONORABLE TRIAL COURT ERRED IN CONVICTING THE
ACCUSED OF THE CRIME CHARGED DESPITE THE
PROSECUTIONS FAILURE TO PROVE HIS GUILT BEYOND
REASONABLE DOUBT
II
THE HONORABLE COURT ERRED IN CONVICTING THE
ACCUSED DESPITE PATENT IRREGULARITIES IN THE
PRESERVATION OF THE INTEGRITY AND EVIDENTIARY
VALUE OF THE SEIZED DRUGS.
III
THE HONORABLE TRIAL COURT ERRED IN RELYING ON THE
PRESUMPTION OF REGULARITY IN THE PERFORMANCE OF
DUTY OF THE ARRESTING OFFICERS
13
Id.
14
Testimony of Dante Tabin, TSN, October 14, 2016, p. 4
15
TSN, October 14, 2016, pp. 5-6
16
TSN, October 14, 2016, pp. 6-7
17
TSN, October 14, 2016, p. 8
7
ARGUMENTS
At the outset, it is to be emphasized that the undersigned is

fully aware of the well-entrenched doctrine that factual findings of a
trial court deserve a high degree of respect and will not be disturbed
on appeal in the absence of any clear showing that it overlooked,
misunderstood or misapplied some facts and circumstances of
weight and substance which could alter the conviction of the
accused.18
It is submitted however that there are facts and circumstances

of weight and substance which were clearly overlooked,
misunderstood or misapplied by the trial court which, if considered,
would have resulted in the acquittal of herein accused.
I
THE HONORABLE TRIAL COURT ERRED IN CONVICTING
THE ACCUSED OF THE CRIME CHARGED DESPITE THE
PROSECUTIONS FAILURE TO PROVE HIS GUILT BEYOND
REASONABLE DOUBT
It is basic in criminal prosecutions that an accused is presumed

innocent of the charge laid unless the contrary is proven beyond
reasonable doubt. The prosecution has the burden to overcome such
presumption of innocence by presenting the quantum of evidence
required.19
Proof beyond reasonable doubt does not mean such a degree of

proof as, excluding possibility of error, produces absolute certainty.
Moral certainty only is required, or that degree of proof which
produces conviction in an unprejudiced mind. It must rest on its
own merits and must not rely on the weakness of the defense. If the
prosecution fails to meet the required amount of evidence, the
defense may logically not even present evidence on its own behalf, in
which case, the presumption prevails and the accused should
necessarily be acquitted.20
Non-presentation of the confidential informant.
18
People vs. Quinao, 269 SCRA 495
19
People vs. Jose Clara y Buhain, G.R. No. 195528, July 24, 2013
20
People vs. Capuno, G.R. No. 185715, January 19, 2011
8
It is well-settled that, except when the accused vehemently
denies selling prohibited drugs and there are material inconsistencies
in the testimonies of the arresting officers, or there are reasons to
believe that the arresting officers had motives to falsely testify against
the accused, or that the informant himself acted as the poseur-buyer
and the only one who actually witnessed the entire transaction, the
testimony of the informant may be dispensed with as it will merely
be corroborative of the apprehending officers' eyewitness accounts.21
In the case at bar, the presentation of the confidential informant

as a witness was not only essential but also crucial in as much that
aside from PO2 Pasamonte, it was only the said confidential
informant who could attest on the buy-bust in as much as among the
rest of the buy-bust team, he was actually present during the entire
alleged sale transaction of shabu between the accused and police
poseur-buyer. Thus, it was only his testimony that could corroborate
PO2 Pasamontes allegations of an illegal sale of drugs.
It is admitted in the Joint Affidavit of the prosecutions

witnesses as well as in their testimonies before the Court that only the
informant and PO2 Pasamonte proceeded to the house of the accused
while the rest of the buy-bust team tactically parked along the road
which is approximately 100 meters away from the alleged place of
transaction. It was therefore obviously impossible for the other police
officers to get a clear view of the circumstances of the alleged sale as
confirmed by PO2 Pasamonte in his cross-examination before the
Court, to wit:
Atty. Cajigal
(On Cross-examination)
Q: It was only you and the asset who went their house.
Is that right?
A: Yes, sir.22
xxx
Q: When you were at the National High Way with a

distance of 100 meters, you could not see the house
of the accused unless you are there in their house. Is
that right?
21
People vs. Andres, G.R. No. 193184, February 7, 2011
22
Testimony of PO2 Elison Pasamonte, TSN, July 8, 2013, p. 13
9
A: Yes, sir.
Q: In other words, nobody among those companions

of yours ever saw or witnessed the actual
transaction between you and the accused and
between the accused and the asset?
A: Yes, sir.23
xxx
Q: You said nobody saw or witnessed the actual

transaction?
A: Yes, sir.
Q: So it follows, the Courts determination as to

whether or not there was actually selling by the
accused to you based on your testimony and no
other else?
A: In the matter of selling, yes, sir.24
xxx
The above declarations are likewise consistent with PO3

Ramos testimony before the witness stand, to wit:
Atty. Cajigal
Q: So only the asset and the poseur buyer who was

Pasamonte went to the house of the accused?
A: Yes, sir.
Q: While you were on the national highway waiting as

you were telling for the pre-arranged signal, you
could not see the house of the accused, is that
correct?
23
Testimony of PO2 Elison Pasamonte, TSN, July 8, 2013, pp. 13-14
24
TSN, July 8, 2013, p.14
10
A: Yes, sir.
Q: In other words, you did not actually see or witness

the actual transaction of buying and selling shabu
between the poseur buyer and the accused?
A: Yes, sir.25
xxx
Court Stenographer
(Reading the question)
Q: So it was only your asset if only you would like to

reveal who could corroborate the claim of your
poseur buyer that there was actually a buying and
selling of shabu that actually transpired between
the poseur buyer and the accused, is that not
correct, because you did not see?
A: Yes, sir.26
xxx
Apart from the accuseds unpleasant record with the police due
to his two previous acquittals on the drug-related cases filed against
him, the police resented him and vowed to get him by all means.
Impelled by improper motives, the non-presentation of the informant
raises doubts as to the integrity of the statements of the prosecution
witnesses who were all members of the Regional Anti-Illegal Drugs
Special Operations Task Group (RAIDSOTG PRO-1). The absence of
corroborating evidence makes the statements of the police officers
mere self-serving that cannot be relied upon with full credibility.
While it is settled that informants are generally not presented in

court because of the need to hide their identity and preserve their
invaluable service to the police27, the ruling of the Supreme Court on
this matter in the case of People v. Ong28 must be carefully weighed,
thus:
25
TSN, February 3, 2014, p. 20
26
27
People vs. Del Mundo, G.R. No. 169141, December 6, 2006
28
G.R. No. 137348, June 21, 2004
11
The Court is sharply aware of the compelling
considerations why confidential informants are usually
not presented by the prosecution. One is the need to hide
their identity and preserve their invaluable service to the
police. Another is the necessity to protect them from
being objects or targets of revenge by the criminals they
implicate once they become known. All these
considerations, however, have to be balanced with the
right of an accused to a fair trial.
The informants privilege is merely instructive29. Such that

where the identity of the informer has been disclosed to those who
would have cause to resent the communication, the privilege is no
longer applicable. Moreover, where the disclosure of the informers
identity, or the contents of his communication is relevant and
helpful to the defense of an accused or is essential to a fair
determination of a cause, the privilege must give way.
Here, it was imperative for the prosecution to present the

confidential informant and to strike down the privilege since the
identity of the informant was already disclosed when the police
officers alleged that he was a regular customer of the accused. Surely,
the confidentiality of the informants identity must be rendered
irrelevant because the accused and the informant would have been
familiar with each other due to their prior transactions. The
informants identity had already been compromised the moment he
participated and introduced the poseur buyer to the accused. It is odd
for the prosecution and its witnesses to withhold the testimony of the
informant when in fact he was a regular customer of the accused.
There would be no basis to keep the informants identity confidential
because logically, if there was indeed a confidential informant, the
accused would have readily identified him. It cannot be ignored that
the accused, during his testimony in court, did not even mention the
existence of this regular customer of his considering that it was this
particular customer of his that introduced PO2 Pasamonte to the
accused.
The presentation of the confidential informant was

indispensable not only to prove all the material elements of the
alleged sale of shabu and the resulting buy-bust operation, but is also
part and parcel of the accused fundamental right to a fair trial and to
confront this informant as a witness against him, in the case at bar.
The informant had nothing to lose if the accused was indeed guilty of
29
Roviaro vs. U.S., 353 U.S. 53, 77 S.Ct. 623, 1 l.Ed.2d. 639
12
the crime charged. Unless of course, there was really no informant to
begin with and that no transaction actually took place to justify the
alleged operation.
In light therefore of the accuseds strong denial of the

allegations against him supported by the above discussions, the non-
presentation of the confidential informant is fatal to the case of the
prosecution as the same falls within the exception to the general rule
that the confidential informants testimony is not a requisite in the
prosecution of drug cases.
Indispensability of PI Joseph Raton Baltazars testimony.
Nevertheless, even assuming that the prosecution is excused in

not presenting the confidential informant, the failure of the
prosecution to present Action Officer PI Joseph Raton Baltazar in
Court is likewise disastrous to their case.
To be sure, Baltazar was the action officer and leader of the

subject buy-bust operation. It was Baltazar who personally received
the information and talked with the confidential informant with
respect to the alleged illegal activities of the accused. It was also
Baltazar who planned the buy-bust operation and it was him who
briefed the buy-bust team as to their respective roles. Baltazar even
had prepared several documents incidental to the operation. In other
words, Baltazar was a material, if not, the most important witness for
the prosecution. Having received the information personally, his
testimony is clearly crucial in proving the veracity of the informants
report to justify the alleged buy-bust operation. His role in the buy-
bust operation was not limited to mere supervision but he also held
vital information that would insure success and the legality of the
operation. Even PO2 Pasamonte does not deny this fact in the witness
stand, thus:
Atty. Cajigal
Q: By the way, do you know personally the asset that

came to your office?
A: I only know the asset when he reported to our

office, sir.
13
Q: Of course, he approached this Baltazar when the
asset came to your office, is that right?
A: Yes, sir.
Q: Were they and they alone to talk?
A: Yes, sir.
Q: You have never heard the details of what the asset

talked to your chief?
A: Yes, sir.30
xxx
Q: In other words, it would only be your chief Joseph

Baltazar who could testify on the matters revealed
to him by the asset. Because as you claimed you
did not hear what they talked, is that right?
A: Yes, sir.
Q: And it would only be your Chief Baltazar who

could testify to this Court as to the time when he
begun planning on the operation against the
accused and to under what circumstances did he
come know?
A: Yes, sir.
Q: In other words, before I tell you that your Chief

here and even under your Manual, he is supposed
to be the star or the most important witness to
justify your operation. Is that right?
A: Yes, sir.
Q: Because everything taken in this operation will be

under his control, supervision and responsibility, is
that right?
A: Of course, yes sir. 31

30
TSN, July 8, 2013, p. 8
14
xxx
It is clear therefore that Baltazars testimony would have

bolstered the purpose of the buy-bust operation against the accused
and corroborated the testimonies of prosecution witnesses Pasamonte
and Ramos. Having failed to do so, we are lead to doubt the
legitimacy of the whole operation itself and submit that there is
reasonable doubt as to the culpability of the accused.
Substantial gaps and inconsistencies in the testimonies of the

prosecution witness.
It should be pointed out that the prosecutions involving illegal

drugs depend on the credibility of the police officers carried out their
tasks that led to the eventual arrest of the accused.32 In the instant
case however, the trial Court erred in giving more weight and
credence to the testimonies of the prosecution witnesses despite
patent inconsistencies, miserable recollection of the events and
serious procedural gaps in the conduct of the buy bust operation.
First, as members of PAIDSOTG, they are well aware of the fact

that subjecting the buy-bust money for fluorescent dusting is a basic
part of their operating procedure. In addition to the marking of the
buy-bust money, using said technology certainly can reinforce the
case of the police because this allows them to identify the fingerprints
of the alleged seller of drugs later on thereby significantly reducing
any room for doubts and fabrication. Unlike the practice of marking
buy-bust money that can be easily manipulated, utilizing a more
advanced technology such as fluorescent dusting can undoubtedly be
relied upon with greater credibility. It is therefore extremely
preposterous that not even one of the members of the buy-bust team
thought of going through such procedure considering that they had
this equipment available in their office at Camp Valentin, Laoag City
and having been given a leeway of hours to plan the operation.
Second, recalling the narration of facts by the prosecution, it was

admitted that the informant who reported the alleged peddling of
drugs by the accused was a regular customer of the latter. As a
regular customer, he is therefore presumed to be well familiar as to
the residence of the accused and could have easily led the buy-bust
31
TSN, July 8, 2013, pp. 9-10
32
People vs. Elly Naelga, G.R. No. 171018, September 9, 2009
15
team to the place of transaction. This fact was even confirmed by PO3
Ramos during his cross-examination, thus:
Atty. Cajigal
Q: What did they talk about, will you please narrate in

its own words, your Action Officer?
A: The informant, sir, was a regular customer of

Elpidio Valente, and he wanted to stop his illegal
activities, so our action officer plan for a buy-bust
operation, sir.33
However, the explanation subsequently given by PO3 Ramos as

to the main role of the Police Currimao in the subject operation
appears to be in contradiction to such foregoing declarations, to wit:
Atty. Cajigal
Q: Did he also brief you to draw a map as to the place

of the operation?
A: The Police Currimao are the one who execute the

place where we are going, sir.
Q: In other words, from Camp Juan, when you went or

proceeded to Currimao, you did not know the exact
place because you are relying on the Currimao
Police?
A: The informant told us, sir, but we are from Laoag

City so we do not know the exact place so we went
to the Currimao Police, sir.34
xxx
Third, in connection of the foregoing, coordination with

Currimao Police has been clearly made by PAIDSOTG for purposes
of augmentation. If the presumption of regularity in the performance
of official duties is to be applied in the instant case, it is then expected
33
34
16
that deliberation took place between the buy-bust team and
Currimao Police before proceeding to the place of transaction such
that instructions as to where each team must position themselves and
the role that each will be playing were properly disseminated. In fact,
it is even the Chief of Police Currimao himself who personally
affirmed their willingness to help with the operation as testified by
PO3 Ramos in the following:
Atty. Cajigal
Q: So before you went to the place, you went to the

Chief of Police of Currimao at his station at
Currimao, is it not?
A: Yes, sir.
Q: And you asked assistance from him?
A: Yes, sir.
Q: And he willingly told you that he will be coming

with you?
A: Yes, sir.35
xxx
Yet, in the same breath, PO3 Ramos cannot even recall how
many men from Currimao Police came along in the operation nor at
least made an attempt to give an estimate of which. As can be
gleaned in the transcript of records, PO3 Ramos gave conflicting
testimonies as to the presence of Currimaos Chief of Police during
the operation.
Atty. Cajigal
Q: You cannot recall if there were a certain Retotal was

there?
A: I cannot recall, sir.

35
17
Q: You did not know the Chief of Police of Currimao,
Ilocos Norte?
A: I know, sir.
Q: Was he there?
A: Yes, sir.36
xxx
Q: And despite that importance of his participation

you could not tell the Court as how many men did
this Chief of Police brought with him during the
operation, was it five, ten, or what?
A: I cannot recall, sir.37
xxx
Q: Including the driver, could you not at least estimate

if they were at least more than five, less than five,
more than ten or what?
A: I cannot recall, sir.38
xxx
Even PO3 Ramos testimony with respect to where the

Currimao policemen had positioned themselves upon arriving at the
place of transaction sounded absurd and conflicting, to wit:
Atty. Cajigal
Q: Being one of these operatives, do you know where

all these personnel were positioned during the
operations?
36
37
38
18
A: Only in our team, sir, my companions in
PAIDSOTG.
Q: You could only remember where they position the

four of you including your asset?
A: Yes, sir.
Q: As for the policemen from Currimao, you did not

know where they positioned themselves before,
during and after the operations?
A: I could not recall, sir.
Q: Perhaps you could even tell this Court that you

never saw them even before or after the operation
in the area, is that right?39
xxx
Court
Q: Did you see these police officers from Currimao

located in your area?
A: Yes, your Honor.
Atty. Cajigal
Q: You saw them in the area also, these policemen

from Currimao?
A: When we rushed the suspect then that was the time

we are all in the same area. 40
xxx
Q: Where did you park your vehicles, was it on the

western side or the eastern side?
A: Western side, sir.
39
40
19
Q: Your vehicle and the vehicle of the Currimao
policemen, is that right, were parked there?
A: I cannot recall where the vehicle of the police

Currimao parked their vehicle, sir.
Q: Did you not know where the Currimao Police

vehicle was parked in relation to the vehicle which
you used?
A: I cannot remember, sir.
Q: In other words, you do not even remember when

you walked going inside to the suspects house, you
did not even know if Currimao police walked with
you?
A: I dont remember, sir.
Q: In other words, you want to tell this Court that the

last time that you saw these policemen from
Currimao was after you came from the Currimao
Police Station?
A: No, sir, after we went to Currimao Police Station,

we have a convoy, sir.
Q: In other words, you went on a convoy from

Currimao Police Station up to that place where you
parked after the Gaang bridge, is that not correct?
A: Yes, sir.
Q: You went on a convoy, you parked at the same time

and at least you saw that these policemen walked
along with you when you entered the supposed
area, is that correct?
A: Yes, sir.
Q: So in other words you are now changing your

testimony that you never saw the policemen before
the operation when you entered, now you saw
them. That is now a fact that you went inside the
20
area of the operation at the interior together with
the policemen of Currimao, is that correct?
A: We just wait for the pre-arranged signal, sir, and

after the miscalling we rushed to the place, sir.
Q: Im not asking you the pre-arranged signal I am not

yet at that point, Mr. Witness, who went inside the
area first or all of you went together in the area?
A: All I remember is, only the PAIDSOTG, went to the

place where Elpidio Valente was, sir. 41
xxx
Q: How about the policemen from Currimao, where

were they at the time?
A: I cannot recall, sir, my concern is in our team

because that was what designated as PAIDSOTG to
concentrate on our team, sir.
Q: Im asking you, while you were there, the three of

you while waiting for the pre-arranged signal as
you were talking about, where were these
policemen from Currimao Police Station?
Q: You cannot remember?
A: Yes, sir.
Q: Of course you could not even remember whether

they went together with Pasamonte and the asset or
they were just along the highway, you cannot
remember?
A: I think they are also on the national high way, sir.42
xxx
41
TSN, February 3, 2014, pp. 17-18
42
21
Fourth, the prosecutions narration as to the actual
apprehension of the accused likewise appears dubious and tainted
with inconsistency. As sworn by PO3 Ramos in their Joint Affidavit43,
he immediately handcuffed Valente and thereafter asked him if he
had the license or authority to sell dangerous drugs to which the
latter responded in the negative. While this declaration remained
consistent at the earlier part of his direct examination, a conflicting
version was nevertheless laid down at the latter part and even during
his cross-examination, thus:
Pros. Pascua
(On Direct Examination)
A: Because when we rushed to the house of Valente,

sir, after telling we are Police Officers, he fled away,
sir, so we chased him, sir, and after we have chased
him near the house of the river and that was the
time I handcuffed him, sir.
Q: So after you handcuffed the accused Elpidio

Valente, what happened next if any?
A: I asked him if he has the authority to sell illegal

drug, sir.
Q: And what was the response of accused Elpidio

Valente with that query whether or not he is
authorized to sell dangerous drugs?
A: He replied negative, sir.
Q: And because of the negative reply of the accused

Elpidio Valente, what happened next if any?
A: I handcuffed him and told his constitutional

rights, sir.44
xxx
Atty. Cajigal
43
Exhibit A-1 of the records.
44
22
Q: Alright, after you catch him, what did you do?
A: I asked him if he has the authority to sell such drugs

and he replied in the negative so I handcuffed him,
sir, and told his constitutional rights.45
xxx
It was equally strange that PO1 Pasamonte who acted as

poseur-buyer did not act immediately when the accused allegedly
attempted to escape considering that he was only about two meters
away from the latter. Being at a more advantageous proximity with
the accused, it is then highly suspicious how PO3 Ramos who was
then about thirty (30) meters far still ended up as the one
apprehending the accused and not PO1 Pasamonte. Thus:
Atty. Cajigal
Q: Could you not calculate the distance between your

asset and the two at that time because you said they
were facing each other?
A: Maybe two (2) meters away.46
xxx
Q: You said that they were only around two meters

distance with the accused, when he ran you were
thirty meters away?
A: Yes, sir.
Q: And yet, when the accused ran this poseur buyer

Pasamonte was only two meters at a distance also
chased him but you were the one who was able to
catch him even if you were thirty meters farther
away from him
A: Yes, sir.
Q: You are a fast runner?
45
46
23
A: Only Pasamonte ran after I also ran towards the
suspect and that was the time he ran also, sir.47
xxx
Fifith, to remove any suspicion as to the participation of

Currimao Police in the subject operation, the prosecution could have
simply presented Retotar, PNP Currimaos Chief of Police, or any of
the police officers who accompanied him at that time but failed to do
so thereby weakening even more the credibility of the testimonies of
PO1 Pasamonte and PO3 Ramos.
Clearly, the respective testimonies of the apprehending police

officers do not reconcile with each other. As aptly held, testimonies to
be credible must be clear and free from serious contradictions.48 And
where the testimonies of two (2) witnesses cannot stand together the
inevitable conclusion is that one or both must be telling a lie and their
story a mere concoction.49
On the basis of such contradictions on the respective testimony

of the apprehending police officers, it is submitted that the Court
committed reversible error in considering them as credible witnesses
and lent credence to their testimony over the presumption of
innocence of the accused. The above-stated procedural gaps and
testimonial inconsistencies raises reasonable doubt
II
THE HONORABLE COURT ERRED IN CONVICTING THE
ACCUSED DESPITE PATENT IRREGULARITIES IN THE
PRESERVATION OF THE INTEGRITY AND EVIDENTIARY
VALUE OF THE SEIZED DRUGS.
Consequently, the absence of corroborating evidence

aggravated by the inconsistencies in the testimonies of the
prosecution noted in the foregoing weakens the position of the
prosecution that the chain of custody has been duly preserved which
is a critical factor in proving the guilt of the accused in drug cases.
In prosecutions for illegal sale of dangerous drugs, the

following must be proven: (1) that the transaction or sale took place;
47
TSN, February 3, 2014, pp. 29
48
People vs. Sodsod, 404 SCRA 39
49
People vs. Lim, 386 SCRA 581
24
(2) the corpus delicti or the illicit drug was presented as evidence;
and (3) that the buyer and seller were identified.50 The dangerous
drug is the very corpus delicti of the offense.51
The presentation of the dangerous drugs as evidence in court is

material if not indispensable in every prosecution for the illegal sale
and possession of dangerous drugs. As such, the identity of the
dangerous drugs should be established beyond doubt by showing
that the items offered in court were the same substances bought
during the buy-bust operation. This rigorous requirement, known
under R.A. No. 9165 as the chain of custody, performs the function of
ensuring that unnecessary doubts concerning the identity of the
evidence are removed.52
To preserve the integrity of the chain of custody, Section 21 of

R.A. No. 9165 provides:
(a) The apprehending officer/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
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 copy
thereof. Provided, that the physical inventory and
the photograph shall be conducted at the place
where the search warrant is served; or at least the
nearest police station or at the nearest office of the
apprehending officer/team, whichever is
practicable, in case of warrantless seizures;
Provided, further, that noncompliance with these
requirements under justifiable grounds, as long as
the integrity and evidentiary value of the seized
items are properly preserved by the apprehending
team/officer, shall not render void and invalid such
seizures of and custody over said items.
50
People vs. Bandang, G.R. No. 151314, 3 June 2004
51
People vs. Simbahon, 449 Phil. 74, 81 (2003)
52
People vs. Mendoza, G.R. No. 192432, June 23, 2014
25
In the case at bar, it is submitted that the above-mentioned
procedure was not shown to have been complied with by the
members of the buy-bust team, and nothing on record suggests that
they had extended reasonable efforts to comply with the said
statutory requirement. The deficiency is patent from the fact that the
inventory was neither witnessed nor signed by any representative
of the DOJ or media or by any elected public official as shown by
the Receipt of Properties/Articles Seized53, Photograph54, Joint
Affidavit and testimonies of the witnesses in Court.
It is notable that while PO2 Pasamonte was able to identify the

inventory, photograph and to state the markings that were made on
the seized drugs in court, nothing in the records show that the
markings, inventory and photographs were witnessed by an elected
public official, or any representative of the media or Department of
Justice. Worse, the Joint Affidavit which constituted as his direct
testimony in court, only contained a general averment that the
marking, inventory and photograph was witnessed at all times by the
accused but did not mention that they were done in the presence of a
representative of the media or DOJ or an elected public official.
Surely, the presence of the representatives from the media or

DOJ, or of any elected public official during the seizure, confiscation,
and physical inventory and photographing of the contraband are
imperative. As stated in People v. Catalan55, such presence is precisely
necessary to insulate the apprehension and incrimination procedures
from any taint of illegitimacy or irregularities.
Furthermore, the records are bereft of any evidence that the

police officers had exerted any reasonable efforts to comply with the
strict procedural mandate of the law especially since they had
undergone a briefing hours prior to the operation. This blatant
violation, be it due to oversight or negligence, is necessarily fatal to
the prosecutions case.
The case of People v. Mendoza56 resulted in an acquittal because

the buy-bust team failed to mark, conduct the inventory and take
photographs of the seized items without the presence of those
required under the law, thus:
53
Exhibit F of the records.
54
Exhibits L and M of the records.
55
G.R. No. 189330, November 28, 2012
56
G.R. No. 192432, June 23, 2014
26
The consequences of the failure of the arresting lawmen
to comply with the requirements of Section 21(1), supra,
were dire as far as the Prosecution was concerned.
Without the insulating presence of the representative
from the media or the Department of Justice, or any
elected public official during the seizure and marking of
the sachets of shabu, the evils of switching, "planting" or
contamination of the evidence that had tainted the buy-
busts conducted under the regime of RA No. 6425
(Dangerous Drugs Act of 1972) again reared their ugly
heads as to negate the integrity and credibility of the
seizure and confiscation of the sachets of shabu that were
evidence herein of thecorpus delicti, and thus adversely
affected the trustworthiness of the incrimination of the
accused. Indeed, the insulating presence of such
witnesses would have preserved an unbroken chain of
custody.
The Court in several cases had repeatedly underscored the

importance of complying with the mandate of the law. Thus, the
deviation from the standard procedure dismally compromises the
integrity of the evidence.57
To be sure, Section 21(a), Article II of the IRR offers some

flexibility in complying with the express requirements under
paragraph 1, Section 21, Article II of R.A. No. 9165, i.e., "non-
compliance with 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 of and custody over said
items[.]" This saving clause, however, applies only where the
prosecution recognized the procedural lapses, and, thereafter,
explained the cited justifiable grounds, and when the prosecution
established that the integrity and evidentiary value of the evidence
seized had been preserved.58
These conditions were not met in the present case, as the

prosecution did not even attempt to offer any justification for its
failure to follow the prescribed procedures in the handling of the
seized items. Failing to prove entitlement to the application of the
proviso, the arresting officers' non-compliance with the procedure
57
People vs. Orteza, G.R. No. 173501, July 31, 2007; People vs. Nazareno, G.R. No. 174771, September
11, 2007; People vs. Santos, Jr., G.R. No. 175593, October 17, 2007
58
People vs. Garcia, G.R. No. 173480, February 25, 2009
27
laid down by R.A No. 9156 is not excused. This inexcusable non-
compliance effectively invalidates their seizure of and custody over
the seized drugs, thus, compromising the identity and integrity of the
same. We resolve the doubt in the integrity and identity of the corpus
delicti in favor of appellant as every fact necessary to constitute the
crime must be established by proof beyond reasonable doubt.
Considering that the prosecution failed to present the required
quantum of evidence, appellant's acquittal is in order.59
The chain of custody was not duly established by the prosecution.
"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 and finally 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.60
To establish the chain of custody in a buy-bust operation, the

prosecution must establish the following links, namely: First, the
seizure and marking, if practicable, of the illegal drug recovered from
the accused by the apprehending officer; Second, the turnover of the
illegal drug seized by the apprehending officer to the investigating
officer; Third, the turnover by the investigating officer of the illegal
drug to the forensic chemist for laboratory examination; and Fourth,
the turnover and submission of the marked illegal drug seized by the
forensic chemist to the court.61
It was explained that the chain of custody rule includes

testimony about every link in the chain, from the moment the item
was picked up to the time it was offered in evidence, in such a way
that every person who touched the exhibit would describe how and
from whom it was received, where it was and what happened to it
while in the witness possession, the condition in which it was
received and the condition in which it was delivered to the next link
in the chain.62
59
People vs. Ranilo Dela Cruz, G.R. No. 177222, October 29, 2008
60
Dangerous Drugs Board Regulation No. 1, Series of 2002, Sec. 1 (b)
61
People vs. Remegio, G.R. No. 189277, December 5, 2012
62
Malilin vs. People, G. R. No. 172953, April 30, 2008; People vs. Almodiel, G.R. No. 200951, September
5, 2012
28
In the Joint Affidavit63 executed by PO1 Pasamonte, PO2 Ramos
and PO2 Pola, it was admitted that inventory, markings and photograph
of seized items were made at the place of arrest as witnessed at all times by
the accused. As police officers equipped with knowledge and years of
experience on the proper handling of drug cases, they are indeed
aware that describing with particularity the manner on how
markings were made as early as in the execution of a joint affidavit
immediately after the operation is vital in strengthening their case.
However, this has been carelessly disregarded in the instant case as
the statements made in their Joint Affidavit were nothing but mere
general aversions that fail to describe in particular as to who among
them made the markings and what letters or characters were in fact
written on the seized plastic sachets.
While PO1 Pasamonte claimed to have made the markings

himself later before the Court. Nonetheless, a close and critical
evaluation of the circumstances raises doubts and it is surmised that
such claim may only be part of a fabricated plan or an afterthought
by the police. What makes it even more suspicious is the contrasting
claim that the inventory was witnessed at all times by the accused yet
the prosecution nevertheless failed to give a reasonable explanation
why the Receipt of Properties/Article Seized64 was not signed by him
nor any of the persons required by law.
Assuming arguendo that the markings are genuine, the

prosecution tried to convince the trial court that it was PO1
Pasamonte who was in custody of the seized illegal drug from the
first to the third link, that is, from the time the illegal drug was
recovered from the accused until it was turned over to the forensic
chemist (PSI Baligod) for laboratory examination, by offering as
evidence the markings E/P and E/V allegedly made by him on
the confiscated plastic sachets. A deviation from PO1 Pasamontes
admissions could however be gleaned in the observations made by
PSI Baligod in her Initial Laboratory Report65 wherein she noted that
the markings E/P and E/V were written on a transparent tape.
Narrating further the circumstances of the specimen while in

the custody of PSI Baligod, the following were likewise admitted in
her proffered testimony:
63
Exhibit A-1 of the records.
64
Exhibit F of the records.
65
Exhibit H of the records.
29
After that, she sealed the specimen by placing a
masking tape. And on the other edge of it, labeled the
same with her personal markings. And turned over the
specimen to the Evidence Custodian for safekeeping until
the same was submitted to Court during the Preliminary
Conference. [Emphasis supplied]
Yet, never did SPO2 Teodoro Flojo, the then Evidence

Custodian of the PNP Crime Laboratory Office, mention in his
testimony any observation as to the personal markings made by
PSI Baligod. Even the allegation that PSI Baligod had placed her
personal markings upon the specimen was again nothing but a
general averment that cannot be regarded as a sufficient compliance
with the rule pertaining to chain of custody. SPO2 Flojo likewise
failed to include in his testimony the circumstances of the specimen
while the same was under his custody. In the interim that it was in
the hands of the Evidence Custodian, the prosecution did not offer
any testimony as to how it was stored until it was submitted to the
Court. Thus, we are at a loss on how the specimen ended up being
extracted from a properly sealed brown envelope during the direct
testimony of PO1 Pasamonte for the purpose of identifying the same
as part of the prosecutions exhibits. Even more disturbing are the
observations noted by Pros. Pascua himself which were never
specified in the testimonies of the previous handlers of the specimen,
to wit:
Pros. Pascua:
And extracted from this brown envelope labeled as Exh.

J is heat-sealed transparent plastic sachet with
markings EV and sealed with masking tape with label
D-039-2011 below the E/V and at the lower part at
the left side, RBB and beside it as a date 19 August
2011.66
These substantial gaps are fatal in preserving the authenticity

and integrity of the corpus delicti because an exact specification of the
markings and observations noted by the persons who were part of
the chain of custody serve as the most crucial means in proving the
individuality of the specimen. In other words, the marking operates
to set apart as evidence the dangerous drugs or related items from
other material from the moment they are confiscated until they are
66
TSN, June 10, 2013, p. 25
30
disposed of at the close of the criminal proceedings, thereby
forestalling switching, planting or contamination of evidence.67
While testimony about a perfect chain is not always the

standard because it is almost always impossible to obtain, an
unbroken chain of custody becomes indispensable and essential
when the item of real evidence is not distinctive and is not readily
identifiable, or when its condition at the time of testing or trial is
critical, or when a witness has failed to observe its uniqueness. The
same standard likewise obtains in case the evidence is susceptible to
alteration, tampering, contamination and even substitution and
exchange. In other words, the exhibits level of susceptibility to
fungibility, alteration or tampering without regard to whether the
same is advertent or otherwise not dictates the level of strictness in
the application of the chain of custody rule.
A unique characteristic of narcotic substances is that they are

not readily identifiable as in fact they are subject to scientific analysis
to determine their composition and nature. The Court cannot
reluctantly close its eyes to the likelihood, or at least the possibility,
that at any of the links in the chain of custody over the same there
could have been tampering, alteration or substitution of substances
from other cases by accident or otherwise in which similar evidence
was seized or in which similar evidence was submitted for laboratory
testing. Hence, in authenticating the same, a standard more stringent
than that applied to cases involving objects which are readily
identifiable must be applied, a more exacting standard that entails a
chain of custody of the item with sufficient completeness if only to
render it improbable that the original item has either been exchanged
with another or been contaminated or tampered with.68
Thus, the prosecution having miserably failed to prove that the

integrity of the specimen has been duly preserved, there is serious
doubt as to whether or not the item allegedly sold by the accused was
the same item subjected for laboratory examination and is also the
same item presented in Court.
Bearing in mind these material flaws and shortcomings on the

part of the prosecution, the presumption of innocence in favor of the
accused cannot be overturned. The accused is therefore entitled to an
acquittal.
67
Candelaria vs. People, G.R. No. 198804, January 22, 2014
68
Lopez vs. People, G.R. No. 172953, April 30, 2008
31
III
THE HONORABLE TRIAL COURT ERRED IN RELYING ON
THE PRESUMPTION OF REGULARITY IN THE PERFORMANCE
OF OFFICIAL DUTY OF THE ARRESTING OFFICERS
Non-compliance of the procedural safeguards of R.A. 9165 negates

the presumption of regularity in the performance of official duty of
the arresting officers.
Neither can it be said that the apprehending officers enjoy the

presumption of regularity in the performance of official duty when it
is apparent that the buy-bust operation team grossly disregarded the
procedural safeguards of the law.
As stated by the Court in People v. Santos, Jr.69, failure to

observe the proper procedure also negates the operation of the
presumption of regularity accorded to police officers. As a general
rule, the testimony of the police officers who apprehended the
accused is usually accorded full faith and credit because of the
presumption that they have performed their duties regularly.
However, when the performance of their duties is tainted with
irregularities, such presumption is effectively destroyed. While the
law enforcers enjoy the presumption of regularity in the performance
of their duties, this presumption cannot prevail over the
constitutional right of the accused to be presumed innocent and it
cannot by itself constitute proof of guilt beyond reasonable doubt.
The presumption of regularity is merely just that a mere
presumption disputable by contrary proof and which when
challenged by the evidence cannot be regarded as binding truth.
In other words, the presumption only arises in the absence of

contrary details in the case that raise doubt on the regularity in the
performance of official duties.70 Here, the poseur-buyer Pasamonte
categorically admitted that he did not know the operational manual
of the PNP Manual involving such operations.71 Worse, he could not
even recall how the members of the PNP Currimao led by their Chief
of Police Retotar participated in the buy-bust in spite of having
admitted that they had sought the help of the latter for the
apprehension of the accused because they were in unfamiliar
territory. It can be inferred therefore that the participation of the PNP
Currimao was vital in the operation against herein accused.
69
G.R. No. 175593, October 17, 2007
70
71
Testimony of PO2 Elison Pasamonte, TSN July 8, 2013, pp. 6-7
32
Ill-motive on the part of the law enforcers stains the legitimacy of the
buy-bust operation.
A buy-bust operation gave rise to the present case. While this

kind of operation has been proven to be an effective way to flush out
illegal transactions that are otherwise conducted covertly and in
secrecy, a buy-bust operation has a significant downside that has not
escaped the attention of the framers of the law. It is susceptible to
police abuse, the most notorious of which is its use as a tool for
extortion.72
While it is true that 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.73 In this
regard however, the Court a quo erred in not considering the
previous acquittal of the accused in another drug related case as
sufficient ill-motive on the part of the law enforcers to false implicate
him to the present charge.
In 2003, the accused together with two other persons were

charged before the RTC Branch 17 Batac City for illegal possession
of dangerous drugs involving five (5) plastic sachets containing white
crystalline substance weighing 1.1 grams of shabu and other drug
paraphernalia, purportedly holding a pot session at Brgy. Pias Norte,
Currimao, Ilocos Norte74 on the basis of a report that the accused was
having a pot session with his co-accused, prompting the members of
PNP-Currimao to search and arrest the subject persons. However, the
case resulted in an acquittal on the basis that the Search and Arrest
conducted by the PNP-Currimao was tainted with irregularity and in
effect, the prohibited drugs could not be admitted as evidence.75
Notably, one of the policemen involved in the 2003 drug case

was PO1 Ryan Retotar. And at the time of the subject buy-bust, he
was the Chief of Police of PNP Currimao, from whom Baltazars
Team requested for augmentation. The testimony of PO2 Dennis
Ramos reveals that not only did the PNP Currimao provided a sketch
or in his words the one who execute the place we are going, but
72
73
People v. Sembrano, G. R. No. 185848, 16 August 2010, 628 SCRA 328, 342 citing People v. Lamado,
G. R. No. 185278, 13 March 2009, 581 SCRA 544, 552 and People v. Remerata, G. R. No. 147230, 449
Phil. 813, 822 (2003).
74
Criminal Case No. 4247-17 (For Violation of Sec. 11, Art, II of RA 9165) , RTC Branch 17 Batac City
75
Decision dated July 30, 2012 RTC Branch 17-Batac City (Criminal Case No. 4247-17)
33
also led the buy-bust team of Baltazar to the place of transaction.
Retotars presence during the operation was admitted by Ramos in
his testimony, to wit:
Atty. Cajigal
(On Cross-Examination)
Q: You cannot recall if there were a certain Retotal was

there?
Q: You did not know the Chief of Police of Currimao,

Ilocos Norte?
A: I know, sir.
Q: Was he there?
A: Yes, sir.
Q: How many did he bring with him?
A: Im not sure, sir.76
xxx
Q: So before you went to the place, you went to the Chief of

Police of Currimao at his station at Currimao, is it not?
A: Yes, sir.
Q: And you asked assistance from him?
A: Yes, sir.
Q: And he willingly told you that he will be coming with

you?
A: Yes, sir.77
xxx
76
77
34
By willingly helping Baltazars team in apprehending the
accused, one can only surmise that Retotar was driven by his
frustration in falsely implicating the accused for the crime charged
especially when his previous acquittal in 2003 was not because he
was guilty beyond reasonable doubt but due to the irregularities in
the arrest. This resentment is obvious when the accused testified the
following exchanges between him and Retotar, to wit:
Atty. Cajigal
(On Direct Examination)
Q: And did you talk to Retotar why he was the one in-
charge of what action they will take against you?
A: Yes, sir.
Q: And what did he tell you and why did they arrest
you?
A: I told him if he can forgive me as I did not do anything

bad, sir.
Q: And what did he tell you?
A: I have warned you before that if they will not be able to

take everything from you, the next time, I will put you to
jail because before this, you were acquitted on a certain
case, they said, sir.78
xxx
From the foregoing, it cannot escape our mind that the subject
buy-bust operation was tainted with Retotars personal vendetta
against the accused. His annoyance with Valentes 2003 acquittal is
enough reason for Retotar to willingly help in his capture. More so
because accused was acquitted not on the basis of his culpability but
rather due to the irregularity of the operation itself. Hence, the police
officers do not enjoy the presumption afforded to them for there is
obviously an ill feeling and animosity between Retotar and the
accused at the time of the arrest.
78
35
All told, the trial court would not have any clear factual basis to
sustain regularity in the performance of police functions, thus leading
to the application of the EQUIPOSE RULE, thus:
Where the circumstances shown to exist yield two or

more inference, one of which is consistent with the
presumption of innocence while the other or others may
be compatible with the finding of guilt, the Court must
acquit the accused; for the evidence does not fulfill the
test of moral certainty and is insufficient to support a
judgment of conviction.79
The constitutional presumption of innocence is not an empty

platitude meant only to embellish the Bill of Rights. Its purpose is to
balance the scales in what would otherwise be an uneven
contest between the lone individual pitted against the People of the
Philippines and all the resources at their command. Its inexorable
mandate is that, for all the authority and influence of the
prosecution, the accused must be acquitted and set free if his guilt
cannot be proved beyond the whisper of a doubt. That mandate shall
be enforced.80
PRAYER
WHEREFORE, the accused-appellant respectfully prays that

Decision of the trial court be reversed, set aside and nullified, and the
judgment be rendered in favor of the accused-appellant for his guilt
has not been proven beyond reasonable doubt.
Accused-appellant further prays for such other relief as may be

just and equitable in the premises.
Laoag City for Manila, Philippines. July 20, 2017, 2017.
MANUEL, NICOLAS AND PERERA LAW OFFICES

Brgy. 6 #62 Rizal St., 2900 Laoag City
ATTY. JASON BADER LL. PERERA

Roll of Attorneys NO. 54820/30 April 2008
IBP No. 0990765-I.N.-01/09/2017
PTR NO. 9560798-I.N.-01/-04/2017
79
People vs. Sapal, G.R. No. 124526. March 17, 2000
80
People vs. De Guzman, 194 SCRA 601, 606
36
MCLE No. IV-0017539-04/19/2013
NOTICE
OFFICE OF THE SOLICITOR GENERAL

134 Amorsolo St. Legaspi Village
1229 Makati City
THE HONORABLE CLERK OF COURT

Court of Appeals
Manila
Please take notice that the undersigned will submit the

foregoing APPELLANTS BRIEF immediately upon receipt hereof for
the kind consideration and approval of the Most Honorable Court.
Copy Furnished By Registered Mail:
OFFICE OF THE SOLICITOR GENERAL RR No. _____________

134 Amorsolo St. Legaspi Village Dated: ______________
1229 Makati City
EXPLANATION ON MODE OF SERVICE81
The foregoing APPELLANTS BRIEF is being filed to the Most

Honorable Court and served a copy of the same to the Office of the
Solicitor General by registered mail due to distance of the office
concerned and the most Honorable Court, time constraints and lack
of personnel.
81
Pursuant to Section 11, Rule 13 of the 1997 Rules on Civil Procedure
37

Court Appeal Brief for Accused in Illegal Drug Sale Case

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Court Appeal Brief for Accused in Illegal Drug Sale Case

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES,

APPEAL BRIEF FOR ACCUSED-APPELLANT

ACCUSED-APPELLANT, through the undersigned counsel

STATEMENT OF THE CASE

This is a prosecution for Violation of Section 5, of Republic Act

That on or about August 19, 2011, in the afternoon, in

When the accused was arraigned, he pleaded NOT GUILTY.

Version of the Prosecution

Evidence of the prosecution sought to present a buy-bust case.

In the morning of August 19, 2011, a confidential informant

On the basis of the said report, P/Insp. Baltazar proceeded to

Thereafter, the team proceeded to the Currimao Police Station

Reaching the subject house, the informant saw the accused

Responding to the pre-arranged signal, PO2 Ramos and PO2

For P/Insp. Baligod testimony, it was stipulated by the

Version of the Defense

On the other hand, accused Elpidio Valente denied that a buy-

Chief Retotar recognized Valente and told his companions

Meanwhile, PO1 Pasamonte asked P/Inspt. Baltazar whether

At the police station, the apprehending officers told him, We

The accused insists that he could never have sold shabu to

Dante Tabin, a neighbor of the accused, was also presented as

At the outset, it is to be emphasized that the undersigned is

It is submitted however that there are facts and circumstances

It is basic in criminal prosecutions that an accused is presumed

Proof beyond reasonable doubt does not mean such a degree of

Non-presentation of the confidential informant.

In the case at bar, the presentation of the confidential informant

It is admitted in the Joint Affidavit of the prosecutions

Q: When you were at the National High Way with a

Q: In other words, nobody among those companions

Q: You said nobody saw or witnessed the actual

Q: So it follows, the Courts determination as to

A: In the matter of selling, yes, sir.24

The above declarations are likewise consistent with PO3

Q: So only the asset and the poseur buyer who was

Q: While you were on the national highway waiting as

Q: In other words, you did not actually see or witness

Q: So it was only your asset if only you would like to

While it is settled that informants are generally not presented in

The informants privilege is merely instructive29. Such that

Here, it was imperative for the prosecution to present the

The presentation of the confidential informant was

In light therefore of the accuseds strong denial of the

Indispensability of PI Joseph Raton Baltazars testimony.

Nevertheless, even assuming that the prosecution is excused in

To be sure, Baltazar was the action officer and leader of the

Q: By the way, do you know personally the asset that

A: I only know the asset when he reported to our

Q: Were they and they alone to talk?

Q: You have never heard the details of what the asset

Q: In other words, it would only be your chief Joseph

Q: And it would only be your Chief Baltazar who

Q: In other words, before I tell you that your Chief

Q: Because everything taken in this operation will be

A: Of course, yes sir. 31

It is clear therefore that Baltazars testimony would have

Substantial gaps and inconsistencies in the testimonies of the

It should be pointed out that the prosecutions involving illegal

First, as members of PAIDSOTG, they are well aware of the fact

Second, recalling the narration of facts by the prosecution, it was

Q: What did they talk about, will you please narrate in