Nuktar Cuevas - Drugs
Nuktar Cuevas - Drugs
COURT OF APPEALS
MANILA
CA-G.R. CR NO. HC-04084
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
-versus-
X- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -X
BRIEF FOR THE ACCUSED-APPELLANTS
ATTY. AMELIA C. GARCHITORENA
ATTY. ABRAHAM C. ONG
and
ATTY. ALLAN JULIUS B. AZCUETA
PUBLIC ATTORNEY’S OFFICE
DOJ Agencies Building
NIA Road, cor. East Avenue,
Diliman, Quezon City
TABLE OF CONTENTS
1|Page
Pages
I. Assignment of Errors……................................. 3
II. Statement of the Case................................... 4
III. Statement of the Facts................................... 6
IV. Arguments.................................................... 13
AUTHORITIES CITED:
LAWS CITED:
V. Prayer…................................................. 33
II
V
THE COURT A QUO GRAVELY ERRED IN
FINDING THE ACCUSED-APPELLANT GUILTY
DESPITE THE ARRESTING OFFICERS’ NON-
COMPLIANCE WITH SECTION 21 OF
REPUBLIC ACT NO. 9165 AND ITS
IMPLEMENTING RULES AND REGULATIONS.
4|Page
When arraigned on 18 November 2003, both accused
5|Page
SO ORDERED.”
request.
presence of shabu.
6|Page
sure if the 47.51 grams of specimen submitted to him for
poseur buyer.
PO1 Mayonte was provided with two (2) pieces of 100 peso
shabu.
1
TSN, 14 June 2004
7|Page
A briefing was conducted and at around 1:30 o’clock p.m.,
has the money and invited the two (2) accused to board their
van. The two accused boarded the van and once inside, Bonjing
He then arrested both the accused while the other police officers
2
TSN, 8 August 2006.
8|Page
PO1 Mayonte, however, changed his testimony by denying
that they dropped by at the barangay hall and that there was no
Butuyan.
surveillance operation.5
designated as the arresting officer and the rest of the officers will
be perimeter back-up.6
3
TSN, 30 July 2007.
4
TSN, 26 November 2007, p. 5.
5
TSN, 29 April 2008, p. 10.
6
Id. P. 14.
9|Page
After the briefing, their team proceeded to the Marikina
PO1 Mayonte’s care were turned on, thus, his team immediately
operatives. He then went inside the van and arrested one of the
work.
They were not able to enter the mall because three (3) male
towards Marcos Highway and they were told not to make any bad
The two (2) accused were driven around and learned that
subdivision and were driven around for about an hour (1). While
they were driving around, their abductors asked for the telephone
them that his parents are not in Metro Manila. They were brought
told them that they do not have that amount of money. They
persons inside the house who were also in civilian clothes. Their
11 | P a g e
names were asked and later they were given food and a stick of
cigarette.
After eating, they were brought outside and the demand for
The accused while they were inside the room heard a person
from the other room telling their abductors not to bring them
their activities.
The accused were then brought back again to the rest house
12 | P a g e
contact number was listed. He told the accused that once he has
The accused did not call the woman. However, the latter
Sarampote and asked him for his decision. He told the woman
that he does not have the money so the woman left and never
returned.
The two (2) accused later learned that they were being
charged of selling illegal drugs when they asked for their inquest
ARGUMENTS
I
THE COURT A QUO GRAVELY ERRED IN NOT
FINDING THE WARRANTLESS ARREST OF
THE ACCUSED-APPELLANTS AS ILLEGAL.
II
9
People v. Chua Ho San, supra.; citing Terry v. Ohio, 20 L Ed 2d, 896 adopted in Posadas v. Court of Appeals, 188
SCRA 288 [1990]; and People v. Ramos, 222 SCRA 557 [1993].
14 | P a g e
billiards accessories when they were abducted by the police
officers.
10
TSN, 29 April 2008, p. 8.
15 | P a g e
“Pros. Paet: Did you prepare pre-
operational report with regard to this
matter?
11
Id., p. 19.
12
Id., p. 37.
16 | P a g e
A. Yes sir.”13
appellants did not commit any crime that will warrant their arrest.
operation.
Camp Crame, they were never provided with a counsel during the
13
TSN, 30 July 2007, p. 3.
14
TSN, 29 April 2008, p. 32
17 | P a g e
investigation in violation of their rights under Republic Act No.
7438.15
“(1) Right to have the written custodial
investigation report explained to him by
his counsel or by the assisting counsel
provided by the investigating officer in the
language or dialect known to him,
otherwise, such investigation report shall
be null and void and of no effect
whatsoever.
(2) Right to have his extra-judicial
confession reduced in writing and signed
by him in the presence of his counsel or in
case of a valid waiver, in the presence of
his parent/s, elder brothers and sisters,
wife, the municipal mayor, the municipal
judge, district school supervisor, or priest
or minister of the gospel as chosen by
him; otherwise, it shall be inadmissible as
evidence in any proceeding.
(3) Right to visits or conferences with
any member of his immediate family, or
any medical doctor or priest or religious
minister chosen by him or by any member
of his immediate family or by his counsel,
or by any national non-governmental
organization duly accredited by the
Commission on Human Rights or by any
international non-governmental
15
An Act Defining Certain Rights of Person Arrested, Detained or Under Custodial Investigation as Well as the
Duties of the Arresting, Detaining and Investigating officers, and Providing Penalties For Violations thereof.
18 | P a g e
organization duly accredited by the Office
of the President.
(4) In the absence of his lawyer, no
custodial investigation shall be conducted
and he can only be detained by the
investigating officer in accordance with the
provisions of Article 125 of the Revised
Penal Code.”
In the case at bar, the court a quo did not rule upon such
accused-appellants’ prejudice.
III
PO1 Mayonte testified that it was the second time that the
16
TSN, 8 August 2006, p. 5.
19 | P a g e
cross-examination that it was his first time to meet the
confidential informant.17
appellants.
location.24
was effected.25 This alone proved that the alleged shabu was still
by the perimeter and backup police officers, thus putting the life
PDEA.26
time considering the large volume of shabu that they were about
to sell.
held the envelope containing the money for at least ten (10)
26
Id., pp. 17-18.
27
Id., p. 19.
22 | P a g e
trusted him too much that they did not even bother to check the
very much aware how thick ten (10) bundles of One Hundred
(100) peso bill is. In fact, ten (10) bundles of One Hundred (100)
pesos will not fit inside a windowed white envelope. This fact
IV
V
THE COURT A QUO GRAVELY ERRED IN
FINDING THE ACCUSED-APPELLANTS GUILTY
DESPITE THE ARRESTING OFFICERS’ NON-
COMPLIANCE WITH SECTION 21 OF
REPUBLIC ACT NO. 9165 AND ITS
IMPLEMENTING RULES AND REGULATIONS.
28
Id., p. 6.
23 | P a g e
In a prosecution for illegal sale of dangerous drugs, the
that the transacted drugs actually exist, but evidence as well that
the drugs seized and examined are the same ones presented in
court. This is a condition sine qua non for conviction as the drugs
are the main subject of the illegal sale constituting the crime and
prosecution.30
In the case at bar, records would show that the court a quo
seized shabu; and (2) the failure of the police to comply with the
29
People v. Robles, G.R. No. 177220, April 24, 2009.
30
Id.
24 | P a g e
In People v. Garcia,31 the High Court emphasized that it is
the buy-bust team with the prescribed procedure laid down under
a copy thereof.
32
People v. Robles; supra note 16.
26 | P a g e
Following the rule that penal laws shall be construed strictly
with the location.35 In fact, the alleged shabu was never marked
33
People v. Ranilo De La Cruz, G.R. No. 177222, October 29, 2008.
34
TSN, 8 August 2006, p. 25.
35
TSN, 30 July 2007, p. 3.
36
TSN, 8 August 2006, pp. 22-23.
27 | P a g e
The prosecution also failed to identify who transported the
alleged shabu from the place where it was seized up to the crime
account for all of these events which have a direct effect on the
Court.
how the integrity and evidentiary value of the items seized had
28 | P a g e
clearly reveal that they did not put the markings at the scene of
the alleged buy-bust operation and that the prosecution did not
prosecution is grave, under the rule that penal laws, such as R.A.
in the handling of the seized prohibited drug from the time of its
therewith, viz:
37
People v. De la Cruz, G.R. No. 177222, October 29, 2008, 570 SCRA 273, 285.
38
People v. Garcia; supra note 19; People v. De la Cruz; supra note 22, at 286; People v. Dela Cruz, G.R. No. 181545,
October 8, 2008, 568 SCRA 273, 284; People v. Santos, Jr., G.R. No. 175593, October 17, 2007, 536 SCRA 489, 504;
People v. Nazareno, G.R. No. 174771, September 11, 2007, 532 SCRA 630, 641; and People v. Orteza, G.R. No.
173051, July 31, 2007, 528 SCRA 750, 758-759.
39
People v. Orteza, et al; supra note 23, at 758-759.
40
G.R. No. 172953, April 30, 2008
29 | P a g e
“As a method of authenticating
evidence, the chain of custody rule requires
that the admission of an exhibit be preceded
by evidence sufficient to support a finding
that the matter in question is what the
proponent claims it to be. It would include
testimony about every link in the chain, from
the moment the item was picked up to the
time it is offered into 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 witnesses' possession, the
condition in which it was received and the
condition in which it was delivered to the
next link in the chain. These witnesses would
then describe the precautions taken to
ensure that there had been no change in the
condition of the item and no opportunity for
someone not in the chain to have possession
of the same.”41
41
Id.
42
Supra note 19.
43
G.R. No. 182231, April 16, 2009.
44
G.R. No. 171732, August 14, 2009.
45
G.R. No. 182528, August 14, 2009.
30 | P a g e
the turnover and submission of the marked illegal drug seized
the Regional Trial Court was broken, in view of the fact (as above
custody.
required by law; where the official act is irregular on its face, the
PRAYER
46
People v. Obmiranis, G.R. No. 181492, December 16, 2008, 574 SCRA 140, 156.
31 | P a g e
WHEREFORE, premises considered, it is most respectfully
crimes charged.
By:
AMELIA C. GARCHITORENA
Public Attorney IV
Roll No. 23557
IBP O.R. No. 807438/ 1-6-10
MCLE Compliance No. III-0007649 1-20-10
ABRAHAM C. ONG
Public Attorney III
Roll No. 37920
IBP No. 805136/1-5-10
MCLE Compliance No. III- 0007652/1-20-10
And
EXPLANATION
(Pursuant to Section 11, Rule 13
Of the 1997 New Rules of Civil Procedure)
The foregoing Brief for the Accused-Appellants is
hereby served by registered mail, personal service not being
practicable in view of the limited number of office personnel who
will carry out this mode of service.
33 | P a g e