Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Memorandum For Prosecution - CLE 2 Final Assignment
Memorandum For Prosecution - CLE 2 Final Assignment
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:
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.
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.”
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
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
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