REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES

REGIONAL TRIAL COURT

7th JUDICIAL REGION
Branch 1
Cebu City

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES,

Plaintiff,
Crim. Case No. 12345
- versus - For: Violation of Sec. 5 and 11,
Art 2 of RA No. 9165
Cornilio Pagador Dullano Jr.,
Accused.
x---------------------------------------------------x

MEMORANDUM

The STATE, by the undersigned prosecutor, and in compliance with the Order of
this Honorable Court, respectfully submits this Memorandum in support of its case, and,
states:

STATEMENT OF THE CASE

This is a Criminal Action for the violation of Section 5 and 11, Article II of
Republic Act No. 9165, otherwise known as the Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act
of 2002.

Section 5 and 11 of RA No. 91651 provides:

“Section 5. Sale, Trading, Administration, Dispensation, Delivery,
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 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 of such transactions. xxx”
Section 11. Possession of Dangerous Drugs. - 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 person, who, unless
authorized by law, shall possess any dangerous drug in the following
quantities, regardless of the degree of purity thereof:
xxxxx
(5) 50 grams or more of methamphetamine hydrochloride or
"shabu";
(6) 10 grams or more of marijuana resin or marijuana resin oil;
(7) 500 grams or more of marijuana xxx (emphasis supplied)

1
Sec. 5 and 11, RA No. 9165
 On evening of October 13, 2019, a surveillance team under the supervision of
POLICE CAPTAIN LUCIA DIAZ conducted a buy-bust operation against accused
Cornilio Pagador Dullano Jr. The poseur-buyer handed a marked bill to the accused
who, in turn, gave him a plastic sachet of shabu. Accused, thereupon, was arrested and
charged with violation of Section 5 and 11 Article 2 of RA No. 9165.

STATEMENT OF FACTS

As culled from the Criminal Complaint2 filed by the apprehending team dated
October 16, 2019, the following are the factual antecedents of the case:
“On the evening of October 13, 2019, a confidential informant arrived at the station and informed
the Deputy Station Commander, PCPT LUCIA DIAZ that a certain JUNIOR is engage in selling
illegal drugs at Sitio Langub, Brgy. Kalunasan, Cebu City. It was also confirmed by PCpl Louiell
Medalla, Station Intel PNCO who conducted validation that JUNIOR is indeed involved in selling
illegal drugs. After the validation, PCPT DIAZ formed a team to conduct buy-bust operation.
During the briefing, PSSg Analito Indoy was designated as poseur-buyer and provided by our
Deputy Station Commander with three (3) pieces of one hundred peso bills with serial numbers
XN796844, YU817977 and CX586025 with pre marked signature at the forehead of Manuel
Roxas, took photograph and recorded in the police blotter with agreed pre-arranged signal to
scratch my head upon consummation. The buy-bust operation was coordinated with PDEA under
coordination number 20002-102019-0298 which was received by IO1 Jaene Dadula. On October
14, 2019 at about 12:20AM together with the confidential informant, the team proceeded to Sitio
Langub Brgy., Kalunasan, Cebu City. Upon arrival, the poseur-buyer and informant walked
directly to the location of JUNIOR wherein they saw him sitting at the end of the foot bridge with
one male companion. While they were approaching, JUNIOR asked, “MO BAMBAM MO PART?”
the poseur-buyer reply, “TRES LANG”, JUNIOR nodded his head and stand up then pulled out
from his right front pocket several heat-sealed transparent plastic sachets containing white
substance which they believed to be shabu and was told to choose. Immediately, the poseur
buyer get one transparent plastic sachet containing white crystalline substance believed to be
shabu, thereafter, he handed to JUNIOR the buy-bust money which the latter pocketed it together
with the remaining sachets of shabu. Right there and then, he put the said shabu that he bought
from JUNIOR to his right side front pocket and he scratched his head to indicate that the
transaction has been done. Thereafter, he introduced himself to JUNIOR as police officer and
arrested him for violation of Section 5 and 11, Art. II of R.A 9165 but JUNIOR resisted the arrest.
A short scuffle ensued but they were able to subdue him by the timely arrival of their teammates
at about 12:45AM of October 14, 2019 and he was informed of his Constitutional rights.
Immediately, a body searched was conducted as incidental to a lawful arrest wherein the buy-
bust money, the six (6) pcs small heat-sealed sachet and two (2) pcs medium heat-sealed plastic
packed containing white crystalline substance. Upon laboratory examination of the item bought
from accused, the same yielded positive for methylampetamine hydrochloride or shabu weighing
8.0 grams.”

The indicting Information3 alleges:

“That on or about the 14 th day of October, 2019, in the City of Cebu, Philippines, and within the
jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the above-named accused, without authority of law and legal
justification, did then and there willfully, unlawfully and feloniously sell, trade, deliver, give away,
dispatch in transit and transport dangerous drug consisting of nine (9) heat sealed transparent
plastic sachet containing methylampetamine hydrochloride weighing 8.0 grams.

Contrary to law.”

ISSUES TO BE RESOLVED

I.
Whether or not accused is guilty beyond reasonable doubt of
Violation of Section 5 and 11, Article II of Republic Act 9165.
2
Attached to Record of Case
3
Attached to Record of Case
 II.
Whether or not there was a valid entrapment.

ARGUMENTS/DISCUSSIONS

I. Accused Cornilio Pagador Dullano Jr. is guilty beyond

reasonable doubt of selling and possession of illegal
drugs in violation of Section 5 and 11 Article II of
Republic Act 9165.

The evidence presented by the prosecution proves to a moral certainty

appellant’s guilt of the crime of selling illegal drugs. What is material is proof that the
transaction or sale actually took place, coupled with the presentation in court of the
substance seized as evidence.

In People v. Unisa4, the Supreme Court reiterated:

“To establish the crime of illegal sale of shabu, the Prosecution must
prove beyond reasonable doubt (a) the identity of the buyer and the
seller, the identity of the object and the consideration of the sale; and (b)
the delivery of the thing sold and of the payment for the thing. The
commission of the offense of illegal sale of dangerous drugs, like shabu,
requires simply the consummation of the selling transaction, which
happens at the moment the buyer receives the drug from the seller. In
short, what is material is the proof showing that the transaction or sale
actually took place, coupled with the presentation in court of the thing
sold as evidence of the corpus delicti. If a police officer goes through the
operation as a buyer, the crime is consummated when the police officer
makes an offer to buy that is accepted by the accused, and there is an
ensuing exchange between them involving the delivery of the dangerous
drugs to the police officer.”

The concurrence of the foregoing elements was conclusively established by the

prosecution. To start with, PSSg Indoy testified in court that Cornilio Pagador Dullano
Jr. (JUNIOR) handed him a plastic sachet allegedly containing shabu after PSSg Indoy
gave the three (3) marked P100 bill to JUNIOR. Secondly, the transmission of the
plastic sachet and its contents from the time of their seizure until they were delivered to
the PNP Crime Laboratory for chemical examination was properly documented, starting
with the marking of the plastic sachet at the crime scene by PSSg Indoy. PSSg Indoy
then personally brought the plastic sachet and its contents, together with the written
request, to the PNP Crime Laboratory, where the delivery of the request and of the
sachet and its contents was recorded by PSSg Gelig of that office. In Chemistry Report
No. CP-D-7806-19, Chemist PCPT ABREGANA of the PNP Crime Laboratory ultimately
certified that the contents of the plastic sachet were examined and found to be 8.0
grams of methamphetamine hydrochloride or shabu, a dangerous drug. And, thirdly, the
Prosecution presented the shabu, the three (3) marked ₱100.00 bill, and Chemist
ABREGANA’s Chemistry Report No. CP-D-7806-19 at the trial.
4
G.R. No. 185721, September 28, 2011, 658 SCRA 305
 II. The record of the case and the testimonies of the
apprehending team support the existence of a valid
entrapment or buy-bust operation.

In Cabrera v. Judge Pajares,5 the Supreme Court enunciated that:

“It must be noted that in instigation, where the officers of the law or their
agents incite, induce, instigate or lure an accused into committing an
offense, which he otherwise would not commit and has no intention of
committing, the accused cannot be held liable. But in entrapment,
where the criminal intent or design to commit the offense charged
originates from the mind of the accused and law enforcement
officials merely facilitate the commission of the offense, the accused
cannot justify his conduct. Instigation is a "trap for the unwary innocent."
Entrapment is a trap for the unwary criminal.
xxx
In entrapment, the entrapper resorts to ways and means to trap and
capture a lawbreaker while executing his criminal plan. On the other
hand, in instigation the instigator practically induces the would-be
defendant into committing the offense, and himself becomes a co-
principal. Entrapment is no bar to prosecution and conviction while in
instigation, the defendant would have to be acquitted.” (emphasis
supplied)

Also in Araneta v. Court of Appeals,6 the Supreme Court said:

“The difference in the nature of the two lies in the origin of the criminal
intent. In entrapment, the means originate from the mind of the criminal.
The idea and the resolve to commit the crime come from him. In
instigation, the law enforcer conceives the commission of the crime and
suggests to the accused who adopts the idea and carries it into
execution. The legal effects of entrapment do not exempt the criminal
from liability. Instigation does.”

Here, the mere fact that the authorities deceived accused into believing that the
former were buyers of shabu does not exculpate the latter from liability for selling the
prohibited drugs. The police can legitimately feign solicitation to catch criminals who
habitually engage in the commission of the offense.

Moreover, the defense that the accused was framed by the apprehending officer
can be easily fabricated and not acceptable for accused being a drug pusher or seller
almost always uses such defense. For the defense of having set up or framed up to
prosper, the evidence adduced must be clear and convincing. Like alibi, it is a weak
defense, that is easy to concoct and is difficult to prove.

But the more important consideration is the fact that accused was positively
identified by the prosecution witness. This should prevail over his denial and
inadmission of having committed the crime for which he was charged, since greater
weight is generally accorded to the positive testimony of the prosecution witnesses than
the accused's denial. As between the positive declaration of the prosecution witnesses
and the negative statement of the accused, the former deserves more credence.

5
 Adm. Mat. R-278-RTJ & R 309-RTJ, May 30, 1986, En Banc, Per Curiam, 142 SCRA 124
6
142 SCRA 534, 1986
 RELIEFS SOUGHT

WHEREFORE, in view of the foregoing, it is respectfully prayed for that a

JUDGMENT OF CONVICTION be rendered against the CORNILIO PAGADOR
DULLANO JR. for the Violation of Section 5 and 11, Article II of Republic Act 9165.

Other relief just and equitable is likewise prayed for.

City of Cebu, Philippines, October 16, 2019.

By:

Jayson F. Arandia
City Prosecutor
PTR NO.576503; 01/20/19; Cebu City
IBP NO. 802969; 12/15/19; Cebu City
Roll No. 34951
MCLE Compliance No. III-0014957; 05/05/19
Office of the City Prosecutor
Hall of Justice, Cebu City