Republic of The Philippines Court of Appeals Manila: Appellant'S Brief
Republic of The Philippines Court of Appeals Manila: Appellant'S Brief
COURT OF APPEALS
Manila
x--------------------------------------------------------------x
APPELLANT’S BRIEF
EXORDIUM
Page 1 of 23
Pursuant to the Notice of this Honorable Court, dated
October 19, 2014 that was received by the undersigned counsel
on October 21, 2014, accused-appellant Adrian D. Columa, by
counsel, most respectfully submits his brief.
ASSIGNMENT OF ERRORS
II
III
IV
Page 2 of 23
NOTWITHSTANDING THE FAILURE OF THE
APPREHENDING TEAM TO PROVE THE INTEGRITY OF
THE SEIZED DRUGS.
Page 3 of 23
In Criminal Case No. 16961-C, accused-appellant was
charged in an Information5 that read:
Page 6 of 23
Evidence,18 which the Honorable Trial Court denied in its Order 19
dated April 7. 2014.
Page 7 of 23
no hiatus or confusion in the confiscation, handling, custody and
examination of the shabu. The illegal drugs that were confiscated
from accused-appellant, taken to the police headquarters,
subjected to qualitative examination at the crime laboratory, and
finally introduced in evidence against accused-appellant were the
same illegal drugs that were confiscated from him when he was
caught in flagrante delicto selling and possessing the same.
ARGUMENTS
Page 8 of 23
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.23 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.24
Page 10 of 23
The Implementing Rules and Regulations (IRR) of R.A. No.
9165, particularly Section 21 thereof, further provides the
following guidelines in the custody and control of confiscated
drugs:
28 People v. Umipang, G.R. No. 190321, April 25, 2012, 671 SCRA 324, 355.
Page 11 of 23
"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.29
29 Section 1 (b) of Dangerous Drugs Board Regulation No. 1, Series of 2002 which
implements R.A. No. 9165
30 Supra, see note 26.
Page 12 of 23
of the illegal subject of sale.31 The manner by which the initial
contact was made, the offer to purchase the drug, the payment of
the buy-bust money, and the delivery of the illegal drug must be
the subject of strict scrutiny by courts to insure that law-abiding
citizens are not unlawfully induced to commit an offense. 32
Here, below were such lapses and doubt that mar the
instant case.
35 People v. Relato, G.R. No. 173794, January 18, 2012, 663 SCRA 260.
Page 14 of 23
crimes as provided for in their respective organic laws:
Provided, however, That when the investigation being
conducted by the NBI, PNP or any ad hoc anti-drug task
force is found to be a violation of any of the provisions of
this Act, the PDEA shall be the lead agency. The NBI, PNP
or any of the task force shall immediately transfer the same
to the PDEA: Provided, further, That the NBI, PNP and the
Bureau of Customs shall maintain close coordination with
the PDEA on all drug related matters.”
Page 15 of 23
violations of RA No. 9165, with the PDEA as the lead
agency.
Page 16 of 23
should be made as far as practicable in the presence of the
suspect immediately upon his arrest. 40
Here, is not clear from the evidence that the markings were
made in the presence of the accused or his representative.
Marking, which is the affixing on the dangerous drugs or related
items by the apprehending officer or the poseur-buyer of his
initials or signature or other identifying signs, should be made in
the presence of the apprehended violator immediately upon
arrest.41
Page 18 of 23
Supreme Court has emphasized in People v. Garcia47 that the
saving clause applies only where the prosecution recognized the
procedural lapses, and thereafter cited justifiable grounds. 48
Failure to follow the procedure mandated under R.A. No. 9165
and its IRR must be adequately explained. 49
Equally important,
the prosecution must establish that the integrity and the
evidentiary value of the seized item are properly preserved.
Page 20 of 23
acquitted the accused due to the prosecution's failure to
indubitably show the identity of the shabu.”
FOURTH, the presumption of regularity in the performance
of official duty cannot be invoked by the prosecution where the
procedure was tainted with material lapses.53 The presumption of
regularity in the performance of official duty cannot by itself
overcome the presumption of innocence nor constitute proof
beyond reasonable doubt.54 The inconsistency in the evidence
and the weak presentation of the prosecution leaves a gaping
hole in the chain of custody, which creates a reasonable doubt on
the guilt of the accused. In view of the prosecution’s failure to
adduce justifiable grounds on their procedural lapses, the
reversal of the finding of the court a quo is in order.
Page 21 of 23
RELIEF
By:
Copy furnished:
Page 22 of 23
REGIONAL TRIAL COURT
Branch 37
4th Judicial Region
Bulwagan, Old Municipal Site,
Calamba City, Laguna
Page 23 of 23