Republic of the Philippines

REGIONAL TRIAL COURT

Third Judicial Region
Branch 64
Tarlac City

PEOPLE OF THE
PHILIPPINES,
-versus- Crim. Case No.
1816-2012
For: Violation
of Sec. 11, Art.
II of RA 9165
MIKE GIZER GALE y
EUSEBIO,
Accused.
x-------------------------------------x

RESOLUTION
Before this Court is a “Motion to Allow the Accused to
Enter into Plea Bargaining” filed by the accused, through his
counsel Atty. Melvin John Q. Cuison, praying that he be allowed to
plea bargain in accordance with the SC-approved Framework for
Plea bargaining in Drug Cases.
Since the motion to plea bargain was filed after the
prosecution rested its case, it behooves this court to assess the
strength of the prosecution's evidence pursuant to the mandate in
Estipona, Jr vs. Hon. Frank E. Lobrigo1, to wit:
“Plea bargaining is allowed during the
arraignment, pre-trial, or even up to the when the
prosecution already rested its case. xxxxxxxxxx if
the accused moved to plead guilty to a lesser
offence subsequent to bail hearing or after the
prosecution rested its case, the rules allow such a
plea only when the prosecution does not have
sufficient evidence to establish the guilt of the
1
Estipona v. Lobrigo, G.R. 226679, August 15, 2017.
2
accused of the crime charged. The only basis for
which the prosecution and the Court could
rightfully act in allowing change in the former plea
of not guilty could be nothing more and nothing
less than the evidence on record. As soon as the
prosecution submitted a comment whether for or
against said motion, it behooves the trial court to
assiduously study the prosecution's evidence as
well as the circumstances upon which the
accused made his change of plea to the end that
the interests of justice and the public will be
served.”

The prosecution presented the Forensic Chemist PSI Angelito

Angel, SPO2 Laverne Garcia and PO2 Rodel Carlo Laxamana.

The prosecution likewise offered in evidence documentary

exhibits consisting of;
Exhibit “A” - Pinagsamang Sinumpaang Salaysay of SPO2
Laverne Garcia and PO3 Rodel Carlo Laxamana;
Exhibit “B” - Confiscation Receipt;
Exhibit “C” - Request for Laboratory Examination;
Exhibit “D - Drug Test Request;
Exhibit “E” - Chemistry Report no. D-180-12;
Exhibit “F” - Chemistry Report no. CDT-190-12 to CDT 192-
12;
Exhibit “G” - and series, pictures taken during the inventory.

STATEMENT OF FACTS
Evidence for the Prosecution

PSI ANGELITO ANGEL2

32 years old, Single, Forensic Chemist and a resident of Villa
Javier, Munoz, Nueva

2
TRANSCRIPT OF THE STENOGRAPHIC NOTES DATED AUGUST 19, 2014
3

In his direct testimony he testified that on September 24,

2012, he received from the PNP La Paz Police Station four (4)
specimen for him to conduct laboratory examination. That he
conducted laboratory examination and found the four (4) specimen
to be positive for the presence of marijuana, a dangerous drug. The
same was admitted and marked as ordered by the court.

That after conducting the specimen, he placed the specimen

in a brown envelope and he sealed and marked to preserve the
integrity of the specimen. The brown envelope was shown to him
and a signature overlapping the masking tape was verified to be his
signature. After sealing the envelope, he gave it to the evidence
custodian. And before coming to court, he retrieved the same and
found to be the same brown envelope he gave to the Evidence
Custodian. It was further stated that he has no personal knowledge
as to the source and as to which of the item allegedly belong to the
accused.

PO3 RODEL CARLO LAXAMANA3

38 years old, married, PNP Bamban, Tarlac, and a resident of
Balanoy, La Paz, Tarlac.

During the direct examination, On September 24, 2012, at

about 7:00 o’clock in the morning, the designated Intelligence
Operative of the La Paz Police Station, La Paz Tarlac received an
information from a trusted special agent who reported to their
station that two (2) male persons identified as Mike Gizer and
Arlon Garcia an outsider from La Paz National High School were
selling illegal drugs within the premises of the school.

Upon receipt of that information, he narrated the information

to Major Mangrobang who instructed him and PO3 Laverne Garcia
together with Chief of Police proceeded to the said school and
coordinated with the principal. Upon arriving at the school, they
were allowed to locate for the reported person.

They saw the person under the mango tree, sitting and were
not doing anything. They asked the three (3) accused including the
minor Giovani Bait to show the content of their pockets, Mike
Gizer opened his pocket and from there, fell those illegal drugs;
3
TRANSCRIPT OF THE STENOGRAPHIC NOTES DATED OCTOBER 28, 2014
4
from the left pocket of the two (2); Mike Gizer Gale were one (1)
heat sealed transparent plastic sachet containing suspected
marijuana, and two (2) heat sealed transparent sachet from Arnold
Garcia. Thereafter, they immediately reported the matter and in
their presence, they marked the evidence there and informed the
principals and the Barangay officials and prepared the confiscation
receipt. He put the markings on the evidence as capital “BB” with
the date 92412 stands for September 24, 2012. SPO2 Laverne
Garcia informed the accused their constitutional rights and together
with the items they were brought to the police station and then the
witness brought the item to Tarlac Crime Laboratory for
examination.

Upon preparation of the inventory prepared by the witness,

one (1) heat sealed transparent plastic sachet was confiscated from
Mike Gizer Gale which was tried as violation of Section 11 of R.A.
9165 marked as Exhibit “E”; which was eventually verified as the
one recorded in the confiscation receipt through the signature made
by PO3 Rodel Laxamana and SPO2 Laverne Garcia.

Inside the courtroom, the witness was asked to point and

identify the accused. The witness, pointed the one wearing white T-
shirt seated at the second row and when asked his name, he
identified himself to be Mike Gizer Gale y Eusebio. He added that
if the confiscation item will be shown to him again, he will be able
to identify the same. The brown envelope was opened in court and
the contents were showed to him. The witness identified the same
items confiscated from the accused Mike Gizer Gale as he was the
one who marked the same. It was added that the police officers
were able to confiscate four (4) sachets since there were three (3)
accused and they were able to confiscate illegal drugs from the
possession of each of the accused. The witness made a marking
RCL1 92412 which stands for his name Rodel Carlo Laxamana.

During the cross examination4, the witness admitted that the

report was revealed to him by a confidential agent, they proceeded
immediately to where the accused were; that it will be the first time
that he will see the accused and his friends and he did not know the
accused during that time. The accused has no standing warrant and
he is not included in the list of drug dealers or drug users. It was
the first time that they were reported to allegedly involved in
illegal activities. When they arrived at the place where the accused
and his friends were, they were just sitting on a trunk of a tree and
4
TRANSCRIPT OF THE STENOGRAPHIC NOTES DATED DECEMBER 9, 2014
5
not doing any crime. They first coordinated with the Principal of
the school regarding the information relayed by the said informant
and they were allowed to look for the three (3) persons who were
reportedly inside the premises of the school while with them a
marijuana. There was no search done to them. They just required
the accused to have their pockets inverted and then Jiovanie Bais
showed the contents of his bag. According to them, it was not
considered searching, being an authority, what they have done is
more on preemptive measures considering that it is a school
premises “para hindi na kumalat ang iligal drugs na ito”. The
accused were not escapee from prison and the police
officers/witnesses were not armed with a search warrant. The
police officers asked the accused to empty their pockets. The same
was made without the presence of media, a representative from the
Department of Justice or National Prosecution Service.

During the Re-Direct5, the witnesses stated that they were

not able to secure the presence of the DOJ and media since they
believed that the reports relayed to them by the informant must be
acted upon immediately considering that the accused were in a
school premises carrying with them an illegal substance such as
drugs, the accused might sell the drugs to the students; but there
were barangay officials present. So they believe as police
authorities, that they should act immediately on the report.

PO3 LAVERNE P. GARCIA

45 years old, married, PNP Bamban, Tarlac, and a resident of La
Paz, Tarlac.

During the direct examination6, on September 24, 2012 at

11:00 o’clock in the morning, they went to La Paz National High
School to conduct drug operation as instructed by their Chief of
Police. They were sent to the school to verify the report that there
was illegal selling of drugs in that school. The witness was
accompanied by PO3 Rodel Laxamana, proceeded immediately to
the school, coordinated with the principal and thereafter, talked to
their confidential agent and located the persons who were
reportedly selling drugs. At that time, they meet up with their
confidential agent at the school. The confidential agent also
5
ibid
6
TRANSCRIPT OF THE STENOGRAPHIC NOTES DATED MAY 26, 2015
6
accompanied them to the principal’s office. According to them,
they needed the confidential agents so that they will know the
persons he was reporting to be selling illegal drugs. After going to
the Principal’s Office, they immediately proceeded to the persons
who were selling drugs. They were under the mango tree. There
were three (3) of them. The witness was about 7 to 10 meters away
from them and he can see them clearly as there was nothing that
could block his vision from them as Sgt. Laxamana approached the
persons and talked to them. They talked and Sgt. Laxamana
confiscated an item. While they were talking, the witness contacted
the barangay officials to be witnesses. However, only one barangay
official arrived and was present. According to the witness, he was
able to know that the person is a barangay official since he was the
one sent by the Barangay captain when they coordinated with him.
After the barangay official arrived, Officer Laxamana marked the
confiscated items. The witness, thereafter, went near them and
appraised the accused of their constitutional rights and they
immediately brought him to the police station. When they arrived
at the police station, their investigator brought the accused to the
interrogation room and the witness did not know anymore what
transpired there. There were three (3) accused brought there but the
witness has no personal knowledge and could not recall why only
one was charged. The witness was asked to look around if he can
identify Mike Gizer Gale inside the courtroom, and he pointed to a
person, and when was asked of his name, he answered that he is
Mike Gizer Gale.

During the cross examination7, the witness reiterated that

when Sgt. Laxamana approached the accused, the three (3) were
seated under the mango tree and conversing. The mango tree was
located near the school, at the canteen. Aside from talking, the
accused were not doing anything, they were just standing under the
mango tree up to the time that an item was confiscated from them.

While it is true that at the time the accused was apprehended

he was just sitting under the mango tree, doing nothing. As
established in the testimony of witnesses, to wit;

xxxx

1. PO3 Rodel Carlo Laxamana8

7
TRANSCRIPT OF THE STENOGRAPHIC NOTES DATED MAY 26, 2015
8
TRANSCRIPT OF THE STENOGRAPHIC NOTES DATED October 28, 2014, pgs. 4-5
7
Q: And were you able to locate the person?

A: Yes sir.

Q: What happened?

A: I saw the person under the mango tree, sir; they were just sitting
there and they were not doing anything and we did not search them
sir.

2. SPO3 Laverne Garcia9

Q: Mr. witness, before Sgt. Laxamana approached the three (3)

persons which you mentioned, did you see what were they doing
prior to the time when Sgt. Laxamana approached them?

A: The three (3) were seated under the mango tree and conversing,
sir.

xxxx

Q: Aside from talking, Mr. witness, were these persons doing

anything else aside from talking?

A: No, sir.

It is clear from the facts that the accused were just talking
under the mango tree when the police arrived. At that moment,
they were not doing any crime nor anything which is against the
law that would permit their arrest. The witness also failed to
establish that the accused had just committed a crime and they
have probable cause to believe based on personal knowledge of
facts and circumstances that the accused committed a crime.

The police officers violated the right of the accused against

unreasonable search as they examined the the contents of the
pockets of the accused without any search warrant.

xxxx
Pros. Parairo

9
TRANSCRIPT OF THE STENOGRAPHIC NOTES DATED MAY 26, 2015, pg.7
8
Q: What happened?

A: I saw the person under the mango tree sir; they were just sitting
there and they were not doing anything and we did not search
them, sir.

Q: So. What else happened?

A: We asked the three (3) accused including the minor Giovanni

Bait to show the content of their pockets and then from the left
pocket of the two (2); Mike Gizer Gale were one (1) heat sealed
transparent plastic sachet containing suspected marijuana, sir and
two (2) hear sealed transparent sachet from Arnold Garcia, sir.
Q: Just to clarify, how did it happen, that one (1) plastic sachet fell
from the pocket of Mike Gizer Gale?
A: We asked them to show their pockets and from there, fell those
illegal drugs, sir.
Based from the above circumstance, there was an illegal
search made by the police officer which violates the provision of
the constitution Article III, section 2 to wit;

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects against
unreasonable search and seizures of whatever nature and for any purpose shall be inviolable,
and no search warrant or warrant of arrest shall issue except upon probable cause to be
determined personally by the judge after examination under oath or affirmation of the
complaint and the witnesses he may produce, and particularly describing the place to be
searched and the persons or things to be seized.

The bill of rights requires that a search and seizure must be

carried out with a judicial warrant; otherwise, any evidence
obtained from such warrantless search is inadmissible for any
purpose in any proceeding. Section 3 (2), Article II of the
Constitution provides;
exclusionary rule which instructs that evidence obtained and confiscated on the
occasion of such unreasonable searches and seizures are deemed tainted and should be
excluded for being the proverbial fruit of a poisonous tree. In other words, evidence obtained
from unreasonable searches and seizures shall be inadmissible in evidence for any purpose in
any proceeding.10

10
Comertiante v. People, G.R. no.205926; July 22, 2015
 9
In the present case, the police officers arrested the accused
without any warrant and without any crime that would warrant the
arrest. Moreover, the prosecution failed to prove the urgency of the
arrest and their failure to obtain a warrant considering that the
arrest was made at 11:00 in the morning and the report from the
confidential agent was received at 7:00 in the morning. The pieces
of evidence obtained by the police shall be considered as “fruit of
the poisonous tree

It is a fact that the law punishes mere possession of

dangerous drugs. It was held in the case of People v. Lagman 11,
that illegal possession of regulated drugs is mala prohibita and as
such, criminal intent is not an essential element. Actual possession
exists when the drug is in the immediate possession or control of
the accused.

In People v. Que12, mere possession of dangerous drugs is a

crime to which the requisites were satisfied in the case at bar, to
wit;
a. the accused was in possession of an item or an object
identified to be a prohibited or regulated drug;
b. such possession is not authorized by law;
c. the accused was freely and consciously aware of being in
possession of the drug.

Similarly, in this case, the evidence of the corpus delicti must be

established beyond reasonable doubt.
On the element of the corpus delicti, Sec. 21 of the
Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act spells out the requirements
for the custody and disposition of confiscated, seized and/or
surrendered drugs and/or drug paraphernalia. In the case of People v.

11
People v. Zaragoza, G.R. no. 223142, January 17, 2018 citing People v. Lagman 593 Phil 617, 625
(2008)
12
People v. Que, G.R. no. 212994 , January 31, 2018.
 10
Nandi13, the Supreme Court has held that the 4 links in the chain of
custody are established; to wit;
1. Seizure and Marking of the illegal drug by the
apprehending officer;
2. Turnover of the illegal drug to the investigating officer;
3. Turnover of the investigation officer to the forensic
chemist for laboratory examination;
4. Turnover and submission of the marked illegal drug seized
from the forensic chemist to the court.

All these elements were not established by the prosecution

since the arrest was not valid and the pieces of evidence were not
obtained legally. Hence, the arrest is not valid.

The Supreme Court, as held in the landmark case of

Estipona, Jr vs. Hon. Frank E. Lobrigo, allows plea bargaining
when the accused is charged with possession of dangerous drugs
under Section 11 of R.A. 9165 and the quantity of “shabu” is less
than 5 grams or in case of marijuana, it is less than 300 grams.

In this case accused Mike Gizer Gale was found to be in

possession of dried marijuana leaves and fruiting tops
weighing 0.733 grams, to which under the law is identified as
prohibited drug and such possession is not authorized by law.
However, the court is mandated to weigh the strength and
weakness of the evidence of the prosecution whether or not the
evidence is sufficient to convict the accused.

In the present case, the court stands with the evidence of

the prosecution that there is a sufficient evidence to convict the
accused based on the presented pieces of evidence by the
prosecution. Let the defense present its evidence regarding the
illegality of the arrest of the accused.
WHEREFORE, in view of the foregoing, the accused's
Motion to Enter into Plea Bargaining is hereby DENIED,
considering that the quantity of Marijuana involved in this case is
within the coverage of A.M. No. 18-03-16-SC, still the evidence of
the prosecution has proved the elements of the crime; that the
13
Pp. v. Nandi, 639 Phil. 134, (2010)
11
accused is in possession of “marijuana”; such possession is not
authorized by law; and the accused freely and consciously aware of
being in possession of the marijuana.

SO ORDERED.

Given the ____ day of ________ 2019 at Tarlac City.

LILY C. DE VERA-VALLO
Presiding Judge
LCVD/tmb