Demurrer To Evidence - Jimmy Nebrida
Demurrer To Evidence - Jimmy Nebrida
VIOLATION OF SECS.
5 & 11,
ART. II OF R.A. 9165
JIMMY NEBRIDA Y Tabafunda
Accused.
x-------------------------x
DEMURRER TO EVIDENCE
The Accused, assisted by the Public Attorneys Office through
the undersigned counsel, and unto this Honorable Court,
respectfully moves to dismiss the above captioned cases on the
ground of insufficiency of evidence.
The following were the two (2) sets of information filed with
this Honorable Court, and their respective accusatory portions
read:
CONTRARY TO LAW.
CONTRARY TO LAW.
STATEMENT OF FACTS
ISSUE
ARGUMENTS
1
People v. Salcena, G.R. No. 192261, November 16, 2011 citing People v. Agulay, G.R. No. 181747, September 26,
2008, People v. Concepcion, G.R. No. 178876, June 27, 2008 and Valdez v. People, G.R.No. 170180, November 23,
2007.
Criminal Case No. 3709 & 3709A
DEMURRER TO EVIDENCE
Page 4 of 17
the offenses of sale and possession of illegal drugs under RA
9165, but also carries the obligation to prove the corpus delicti,
the body of the crime, to discharge its overall duty of proving the
guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt. 2 The reason for
this says the Supreme Court is founded on the very nature
of anti-narcotics operations characterized by the need for
entrapment procedures, the use of shady characters as
informants, the ease with which sticks of marijuana or
grams of heroin can be planted in pockets or hands of
unsuspecting provincial hicks, and the secrecy that
inevitably shrouds all drug deals, all of these provide for a
great possibility that anti-narcotics operations may be
abused. (Emphasis supplied) Thus, trial courts were exhorted by
the Supreme Court to be extra vigilant in trying drug cases lest an
innocent person is made to suffer the unusually severe penalties
for drug offenses.3
xxx
xxx
xxx
xxx
5
People v. Gonzales, G.R. No. 182417, April 3, 2013.
6
People v. Denoman, G.R. No. 171732, August 14, 2009.
Criminal Case No. 3709 & 3709A
DEMURRER TO EVIDENCE
Page 7 of 17
A My immediate back-up and he took photographs, sir.
xxx
(On Direct Examination IA5 Melvin Estoque)
xxx
A Yes, sir.
A Yes, sir.8
xxx
A Yes, maam.
Q You did not notice how Jimmy Nebrida was arrested isnt
it?
A No maam.
A Yes, maam.
8
TSN, September 5, 2013, pp. 9-10.
Criminal Case No. 3709 & 3709A
DEMURRER TO EVIDENCE
Page 9 of 17
A Yes, maam.
Q By the PDEA?
A Yes, maam.
A Yes, maam.
Republic Act No. 9165 and its IRR, by way of exception, both
state that the non-compliance with the procedures particularly the
chain of custody rule embodied in Section 21 would not
necessarily invalidate the seizure and custody of the dangerous
drugs provided there were justifiable grounds for the non-
compliance, and provided that the integrity and evidentiary value
12
People v. Alejandro, G.R. No. 176350, August 10, 2011.
13
People v. Sabdula, G.R. No. 184758, April 21, 2014 citing People v. Gonzales, G.R. No. 182417, April 3, 2013.
Criminal Case No. 3709 & 3709A
DEMURRER TO EVIDENCE
Page 11 of 17
of the corpus delicti was preserved. The non-compliance with the
procedures, to be excusable, must have to be justified by the
States agents themselves. We aver that there is no amount of
justification that can be made by law enforcers since this is a
planned activity. They have ample of opportunity to coordinate
with the required actors specifically the witnesses to comply with
the said rule but they did not. It was not even a part of their
briefing for the said operation as can be gleaned from the
testimonies of PO1 Julaton, IO1 Domatog and IA5 Melvin Estoque
who played major roles in the buy-bust operation. Further, the
transfer of the inventory of the corpus delicti from the transaction
site to Balaoan Police Station already casts doubt as the
safeguard to the preservation of its integrity and evidentiary
value were not put to place none of the witnesses accompanied
said transport to ensure that seized illegal drugs are the same
illegal drugs which were inventoried at the Balaoan Police Station.
The witnesses were only required to attend the signing of the
certificate of inventory at the Balaoan Police Station where they
affixed their signature at certificate of inventory not having
witnessed the actual marking and photographing of the seized
illegal drugs with the accused. It is relatively easy for this law
enforcers to just take persons who will act and stand as witnesses
and sign the certificate of inventory. For the arresting officers
failure to adduce justifiable grounds, it is safe to conclude that
this procedural lapses committed by the arresting officers
deliberately disregarded the legal safeguards under R.A. 9165.
Even if the marking of the seized illegal drugs at the scene of the
crime by the buy-bust team had not been practical or possible for
the buy-bust team to do as contended by PO1 Julaton, IO1
Domatog and IA5 Melvin Estoque, the saving mechanism would
still not be applicable due to the lack of a credible showing of any
effort undertaken by the buy-bust team to keep the seized illegal
drugs intact while in transit to the police station. 14 These lapses
effectively produced serious doubts on the integrity and identity
of the corpus delicti, especially in the face of allegations of frame-
up.15
xxx
A Yes, sir.
A Yes sir but I was with the PDEA team when I handed the
evidences to Melvin Estoque, sir.
A Yes, sir.
Q Now at the time you left the PDEA Office, who was
holding the things seized from the accused?
PROS SOLOMON
We object your honor because it was already answered
and that question has already been repeatedly asked
several times, your honor.
ATTY GACAYAN
What was the answer?
PROS SOLOMON
Already answered, your honor.
ATTY GACAYAN
He said he handed it to him but I was with them and my
question is where?
PROS SOLOMON
He answered before we went to San Fernando, your
honor.20
xxx
PRAYER
21
Malillin v. People, G.R. No. 172953, April 30, 2008.
22
People v. Sanchez, G.R. No. 175832, October 15, 2008.
Criminal Case No. 3709 & 3709A
DEMURRER TO EVIDENCE
Page 16 of 17
Other just and equitable reliefs are likewise prayed for.
GILBERT R. HUFANA
Public Attorney I
Roll No. 61392; March 27, 2012; Manila
IBP No. 974966; January 6, 2015; IBP La Union Chapter
MCLE Compliance No. IV-0020627
NOTICE OF HEARING
GILBERT R. HUFANA
Copy furnished: