1

Republic of the Philippines

Second Judicial region
REGIONAL TRIAL COURT
Branch 28
Bayombong, Nueva Vizcaya

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES

Plaintiff,

Crim. Case Nos: 7826

-versus-

EDGAR ALLEN CADANO y PASCUA

and JOHNFEN GARINGAN y SANDOVAL,
Accused.
x------------------------------------------------x

DEMURRER TO EVIDENCE
(For accused Johnfen S. Garingan)

COMES NOW the accused JOHNFEN GARINGAN y SANDOVAL,

through counsel, and before this Honorable Court, respectfully files this
Demurrer to Evidence on the ground that the prosecution failed to prove his
guilt beyond reasonable doubt:

STATEMENT OF THE FACTS AND CASE

The accused was charged for violation of Article II, Section 5 of the
Republic Act 9165 for alleged sale of illegal drug.

On November 25, 2014, accused was arraigned and pleaded not guilty.
A joint pre-trial followed which was terminated on April 1, 2016 pursuant to
the Pre-Trial Order of the Honorable Court. Trial ensued and after presenting
all its witnesses, the prosecution rested its case and filed its Formal Offer of
Evidence on August 10, 2017. The accused seasonably filed his
Comments/Opposition on August 18, 2017. After which, the Honorable Court
admitted the prosecutions exhibits pursuant to its Order dated September 26,
2017. Consequently, the accused filed his motion for leave of court to file
demurrer to evidence which was granted by this Honorable Court on October
26, 2017.

Hence, this pleading.

 2

DISCUSSION/ARGUMENT
This case arose from an entrapment operation by some elements of the
Bayombong Police Station on the evening of July 14, 2014 at Barangay San
Nicolas, Bayombong, Nueva Vizcaya that led to the arrest of accused Johnfen
Garingan (Garingan) and Edgar Allen Cadano (Cadano) for alleged sale of
sachet of shabu, an illegal drug.

In proving the guilt of the accused, the prosecution presented PO1

Jefferson Mirabueno (Mirabueno), PO1 Mark San Guillao Guillao, PO3 Andy
Cupido (Cupido), PO3 Alex Mencias (Mencias) of the PNP crime laboratory,
PCI Alfredo Quintero (Quintero), Barangay Captain Emery Melad (Melad)
and media representative Julius Adelius Seva (Seva).

At the outset, the totality of the evidence presented by the prosecution

showed that the arresting officers failed to strictly follow the mandatory
procedural safeguard provided by law.

It has been established in a litany of cases decided by the Supreme

Court that a successful prosecution of illegal sale of dangerous drugs
requires that the following elements be established: (a) the identities of
the buyer and the seller, (b) the object and the consideration of the sale;
and, (c) the delivery of the thing sold and the payment therefor.

In this case, aside from the omissions of the apprehending officers in

following the step-by-step procedure in conducting an entrapment operation,
they also have different versions of the event as shown by their conflicting
testimonies.

THE ONE THOUSAND PESO BUY-BUST MONEY WAS NOT

MARKED, AND INCLUDED IN THE INVENTORY

In the Join Affidavit of Arrest and Poseur Buyer, the arresting

officers alleged that the buy-bust money consisting of two (2) pieces 500-
pesos bills and one (1) piece 1,000 peso bill were given by the poseur buyer
PO1 Jefferson Mirabueno to accused Cadano who in turned handed two (2)
sachets of shabu to him. Cadano passed the money to Garingan and after
which the latter uttered PEKE ITO AH prompting the police officers to
arrest the accused.

Contrary to the statements of the police officers, not all the items that
were mentioned in the inventory slip were recovered to the accused during the
buy-bust operation, specifically the one thousand peso bill claimed to be a
part of the buy-bust money. It was proven by the fact that the same was not
listed in the inventory slip. It was only on August 4, 2016 that the police
officers executed a supplemental affidavit pertaining to the one thousand peso
bill which was not listed in the inventory sheet. It was also surprising that the
 3

said one thousand peso bill was not marked with initials of the arresting
officers.

It must be emphasized that the supplemental affidavit was just executed

four (4) days after the alleged buy-bust operation. Therefore, it appears that it
was just a mere afterthought on the part of the police officers, creating doubts
as to the integrity of the said evidence.

The following are the statements of PO1 Mark San Guillao during the
cross-examination by Atty. Diozo:

Q: And the 1000 peso bill, would you agree with me that you did not mark the
1000 peso bill?
A: Yes,sir.
Q: Why?
A: I was not able to do that because the circumstances was so fast, I forgot, sir.
Q: It is not a briefing was conducted before the buy-bust operation?
A: Yes, sir.
Q: But you forgot to mark this 1000 peso bill which you confiscated from Allen
Cadano?
A; Yes, sir.
(TSN, Page 11, Cross-examination of Atty. Diozo, dated August 10,
2016)

Based from the above-cited narrations of PO1 Mark San Guillao, the
one thousand peso bill which was allegedly recovered from the accused seems
to be not a part of the alleged buy-bust monies since the operatives failed to
mark the same despite of the fact that a briefing and marking of buy-bust
money were done before the buy-bust operation. The prosecution has likewise
offered no acceptable explanation which would justify the absence of
markings in the one thousand peso bill and its omission in the inventory slip.
Thus, it raised uncertainties on the existence or non-existence of the said buy-
bust money.

COMPLIANCE OF SECTION 21 of RA NO. 9165 IS DEFECTIVE

It was established that the one thousand peso bill was not recovered to
the accused Cadano in the crime scene, but in the police station. In the
supplemental affidavit of the arresting officers they mentioned that Brgy.
Captain Emerald Melad and media representative Adelius Cesar Seva were
present when they conducted the body search to accused Cadano.

The following are the statements of prosecution witness Adelius Cesar

Seva:
Q: And why were you at the Bayombong Police in the evening of July 31, 2014?
A: I went there because I am making a follow-up of an incident that transpired
but it is not his event, it is an accident.
Xxx
Q: And while you were at Bayombong Police Station, what happened if any?
 4

A: One of the policemen invited me to the investigation room and asked me to

represent or witness the items taken from the suspects.
Q: And do you remember who was this police officer who requested you to be a
witness?
A: I can no longer remember, Your honor.
Q: And when this police officer requested you to be a witness what did you do?
A: I just checked the items.
Q: Where were those items placed?
A: On the office table sir

While it is true that the prosecution has presented media representative

Adelius Ceasar Seva (Seva) as witness, it was clear in his testimonies that he
was not present during the conduct of body search of the accused and during
the inventory of the items that were allegedly recovered from them. Seva even
admitted that his presence in the police station was not purposely to witness
the search, markings and inventory of the items, but just to follow up an
incident. It must be stressed that when Seva was asked by the seizing officers
to be a witness, the recovered items were already placed on the top of the
table, and he just glanced at it. He cannot even remember the items, the names
of the accused nor sign any document in relation with what he witnessed. His
narration was proven by the fact he has no signature in the inventory slip. It
gives the impression that he was just requested to check the items just to
comply with the mandate by the law. But the said compliance was insufficient
and defective.

The absence of his signature in the inventory slip and his failure to
identify the items as well as the identity of the accused negates his
participation as witness.

THE POSEUR BUYER HAVE NO PERSONAL KNOWLEDGE AS TO

THE ITEMS THAT WERE RECOVERED AND FROM WHOM THEY
WERE RECOVERED

The prosecution presented PO1 Jefferson Mirabueno (Mirabueno) who

narrated that he was designated and in fact acted as the poseur buyer. But,
Mirabueno admitted in his narrations that he has no personal knowledge
whether or not accused Garingan handed any shabu to the operatives during
the buy-bust operation and whether there was buy-bust money recovered from
him.

Quoted are the following exchanges between the counsel for accused
Garingan and PO1 Jefferson Mirabueno:

Q: There are two accused in this case, accused Garingan and accused Cadano,
correct?
A: Yes, sir.
Q: And you would agree with me that you did not recover any buy-bust money
in as far as accused Garingan, correct?
A: I was not the one who searched the accused.
 5

Q: So you have no personal knowledge, sir, as to whether or not buy-bust

monies were seized or recovered from both accused during the buy-bust
operation?
A: Yes, sir.
Q: In the same manner Mr. Witness, that you have no personal knowledge
whether or not accused Garingan handed a sachet of shabu to any of the
operatives during that buy-bust operation, correct?
A: Yes, Your Honor.

(TSN, Page 9, Cross examination by Atty. Santos, dated May

25, 2016)
Xxxxx

Q: When Police Officer Guillao searched the pocket of accused Garingan, did
you notice if Police Officer Guillao recovered or seized anything from the
pocket of said accused?
A: I cannot recall, sir.
Q: After that, you brought the accused to the Bayombong Police Station?
A: Yes, sir.
Q: And did you notice if the search on the body of accused Garingan was
continued there?
A: Yes, sir.
Q: Who continues searching the body of accused Garingan?
A: PO1 Guillao, sir.
Q: Did you notice if what part of the body of accused Garingan was searched by
the Police Officer Guillao?
A: I was not present anymore at that time, sir.
Q: Meaning sir that despite that Police Officer Guillao continued the search on
the body of the accused Garingan you were not already there?
A: Yes sir.
Q: So meaning you did not see whether the body of Garingan was searched by
Police Officer Guillao at the police station?
A: No more, sir.
Q: Of course you did not see whether item or items were recovered from the
body of the accused Garingan, right?
A: Yes, sir.

(TSN, Page 14-15, Re-Cross examination by Atty. Santos, dated

May 25, 2016)

It was clear in the above-recitals that poseur buyer Mirabueno failed to

support or affirm the allegations that there is an item or items that were
recovered from the body of the accused Garingan.

It is highly improbable that one who acted as poseur buyer has no

personal knowledge as to the items that were recovered and from whom they
were recovered, considering his distance with the accused during the buy-bust
operation, his participation as poseur buyer and as assistant of PO1 Guillao in
searching the body of the accused. His role during the buy-bust operation and
his testimony were so important in linking the items the accused.
Nevertheless, that there was no witness who could attest that the items were
actually taken from the accused. There is no credible and strong evidence to
connect the items to accused. The prosecution has failed to properly lay the
 6

foundation for the conclusion that it was the accused and no other persons,
who had unlawful possession of the items.

THERE ARE MATERIALS INCONSISTENCIES AS TO WHOM THE

ITEMS WERE RECOVERED

In the supplemental affidavit of PO1 Mark San Guillao who conducted

the search and inventory, he said that he was able to recover one unit black
Nokia cellphone and two (2) five hundred pesos (500) buy-bust money from
Cadano.

Quoted are his statements in the paragraph 4 and 6 of his supplemental

affidavit, which are as follows:

4: That as stated in the paragraph 8 of the Joint Affidavit of Arrest and

Poseur Buyer dated August 1, 2014, which is now part of the record of
Criminal Case Number 7826, Allen Cadano passed the buy money to
Johnfren Garingan after the sale and the latter verified its genuineness
and also shouted PEKE TO AH which prompted Allen Cadano to get
back from Johnfren Garingan the buy bust money.
Xxxxx

6. That I, PO1 , Mark San Guillao was able to seize/confiscate from the
direct possession and control to Edgar Allen Cadano One (1) unit
black Nokia cell phone, two (2)pieces five hundred (500) pesos bills
with serial number BA834290 and AG709136 respectively which were
later recorded in the inventory slip that was filled up by the investigator
at the area of the crime scene.

(Supplemental Affidavit of police officers and witness to inventory of

confiscated evidence)

However, the above-quoted statements are conflicting with his

narrations when he was called to the witness stand. During his testimony it
appears that the two (2) five hundred pesos (500) were recovered from
Garingan.

Q: When you said you body searched the accused Garingan, what happened?
A: I confiscated the 2 pieces 500 peso bill, sir.
(TSN, Page 4, Direct examination of Prosecutor Lingayo, dated August 10, 2016)

As gleaned from the above-mentioned statements, there are disturbing

inconsistencies with the narrations of PO1 Guillao and his statements in the
supplemental affidavit. He mentioned that Cadano get back from Garingan
the buy-bust money when they learned that is was fake. Thus, it is logical to
presume that Garingan was not holding any money during the alleged buy-
bust operation contrary to his statement that he has recovered money from
Garingan.

THERE ARE UNCERTANTIES AS TO WHO BETWEEN THE

TWO ACCUSED WAS SEARCHED FIRST AND THE INVENTORY
 7

WAS DONE IN TWO OCCASIONS AND IN TWO DIFFERENT

PLACES

Quoted are the following exchanges between the public prosecutor and
PO1 Jefferson Mirabueno:

Q: You said that you were not the one who frisked the accused, who
frisked the accused?
A: PO1 Guillao, sir.
Xxx
Q: Who did Guillao frisk or search first?
A: Cadano sir.
Q: And after Guillao searched Cadano he searched the other accused?
A: Yes but the search was not finished.
Q: Why do you say that the search on accused Garingan by Police Officer
Guillao was not finished?
A: There was already a commotion and that there were many people
surrounding the area, Your Honor, so our team leader decided to bring
them to police station, Your Honor.
(TSN, Page 13, Re-Direct examination of Prosecutor Lingayo, dated May 25, 2016)

Quoted are the following exchanges between the public prosecutor and
PO1 Mark San P. Guillao:

Q: After you informed the accused of their Miranda rights, what did you
do next?
A: I body search the accused, sir.
Q: When you said you body searched the accused, whom did you
search first?
A: It was Mr. Garingan, sir.
Q: When you said you body searched the accused Garingan, what
happened?
A: I confiscated the 2 pieces 500 peso bill, sir.
Q: After confiscating the 2 500 peso bill from Garingan, what did you do
next?
A:Next is to body search Cadano but we cannot do the body search
because of many persons who were around so we continue the body
search in the police station, sir.
(TSN, Page 5, Direct examination of Prosecutor Lingayo, dated August 10, 2016)

According to Mirabueno, it was the accused Cadano who was first frisked
or searched before accused Garingan. But according to Guillao it was
Garingan first before Cadano. The inconsistences are material because it
raised doubts as to whom the items were recovered.

Grounded also on the above-quoted statements it was clear that the seizing
officers did not finished the search and inventory in the crime scene and they
decided to continue it in the police station by reason of alleged commotion.
However, when the search and inventory was continued at the police station,
PO1 Mirabueno, who testified that he was with him the two (2) heat sealed
transparent plastic sachet, admitted that he was not present anymore at the
 8

time PO1 Guillao continued the search, inventory and photographs of the
items.
Q: Who continued searching the body of accused Garingan?
A: P01 Guillao, Sir.
Q: Did you notice if what part of the body of accused Garingan was searched by Police
officer Guillao?
A: I was not present anymore at that time, sir.
(TSN, Page 15, Re-cross examination of Atty. Santos, dated May 25, 2016)

Further, when PO1 Mirabueno was re-called to the witness stand to

continue his testimony he said that he was holding the plastic sachets upon
reaching the Bayombong Police Station until it was brought to the crime
laboratory, and in fact he placed the items in a plastic container but he failed
to put his marking on the plastic container where he put the items.

Quoted are the following statements of PO1 Mirabueno:

Q: Now, after reaching the Bayombong Police Station, what happened with
these two pieces of sachet?
A: I was holding it, sir.
Q: How long a time were you holding it those plastic sachets?
A: Until we brought it to the crime laboratory.
Q: You were holding the plastic?
A: We placed it on a plastic sachet.
Q: So there is a plastic container wherein you placed the sachet of shabu?
A: Yes, Your honor.
Q: Did you put your marking on plastic sachet containing these two plastic
sachets of shabu?
A: No, Your honor.
Q: It was at the police station where you put these two plastic of shabu
inside a plastic container?
A: Yes, sir.
Q: Did you seal that plastic container?
A: I hold it sir.
Q: What is clear sir, is that you did not put any marking in that container?
A: Yes, sir.
Q: Where is that container now sir?
A: After we turned over the sachets to the crime scene laboratory, I threw the container
away sir.
(TSN, Page 18-19, Cross-examination of Atty. Santos, dated June 1, 2016)

Such testimony was disputed by PO1 Guillao when he testified that when
he searched Cadano at the police station, only SPO3 Visitacion, PO2 Pagada,
and the barangay captain were present. Hence, where was PO1 Mirabueno
during the search at the police station? Where are the items in the possession
of PO1 Mirabueno? Was the shabu which was placed at the top of the table
and shown to the witnesses same with the shabu which was held and brought
by Mirabueno to the crime laboratory? If yes, why he said that during the
continuation of the search and inventory he was not present.
 9

The police officers who conducted the alleged buy-bust operation

failed to comply with the chain of custody. Citing Malillin vs. People,
G.R. No. 172953, April 30, 2008:

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 witness 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. While testimony about a perfect chain is
not always the standard because it is almost always impossible to
obtain, an unbroken chain of custody becomes indispensable and
essential when the item of real evidence is not distinctive and is
not readily identifiable, or when its condition at the time of testing
or trial is critical, or when a witness has failed to observe its
uniqueness.

THERE ARE CONTRADICTIONS AS TO WHO CAUSED THE

PREPARATION OF THE INVENTORY

There were also apparent ambiguities on who prepared the inventory of

the items aside from the fact that the inventory was done in two occasions and
in two different places, one at the scene of the incident and one at the police
station. PO1 Mirabueno testified that PO2 Pagada took charge of conducting
the inventory. This statement was corroborated by PO2 Pagada when he
testified that his participation in the buy-bust was that he was the one who
took pictures and he was the one who prepared the inventory receipt.

Quoted are the following statements of PO2 Pagada:

Q: Mr. Witness, your participation in the buy-bust operation regarding

this case is that you were the one who took pictures and you were the one
who prepared the inventory receipt, right?
A: Yes, Your Honor.
(TSN, Page 11, Cross-examination of Atty. Diozo, dated August 31, 2016)

However, after careful perusal of the inventory slip, PO1 Pagada was
not the one who signed it but PO1 Mirabueno and PO1 Guillao. Here there is
doubt as to the identity of the person who prepared the Inventory of
Seized/Confiscated Items. If indeed, it was PO1 Mirabueno who conducted
the inventory why during his testimony it was proven that he cannot even
remember or was never bothered to ask what items were recovered and to
 10

whom they were recovered. Even grating that it was really PO1 Pagada who
prepared the inventory slip then why his signature in the inventory slip was
absent? In effect, it negates his participation during the buy-bust operation.

Aside from that, PO1 Mirabueno testified that he put his markings on
the items particularly the two (2) heat sealed transparent plastic sachet.

Quoted are the following statements of PO1 Mirabueno:

Q: After spreading those two sachets on the ground, what else if any did
you do?
A: I marked them sir.
(TSN, Page 6, Direct-examination of Pros. Lingayo, dated May 25, 2016)

However the above-quoted statements was contradicted by PO2

Pagada when he testified that it was he who put his markings on the
items, took photographs and prepared the inventory form and listed all
the items.

Quoted are the following statements of PO1 Pagada:

Q: Now, how did conduct the inventory, you just listed the items as you
saw them on the ground?
A: They put down the items on the pavement, I put my markings, I took
photographs and I prepared the inventory form and listed all the items and
let my companions sign the inventory form
(TSN, Page 18, dated August 31, 2016)

It was also proven that PO2 Pagada put his markings on the items
despite the fact that when he arrived at the scene, it was already Mirabueno
and Guillao who were holding the items, meaning, he does not have any
personal knowledge from whom the items which he marked were recovered,
as he did not see from whom the items held by Mirabueno and Guillao were
taken. Thus it also cast a doubt as to the identity of the person who marked the
confiscated items.

Gleaned from the testimonies of the police officers is their dismal

failure to give a clear picture on how they carried out the buy-bust operation.
The prosecution patently failed to establish that the integrity and evidentiary
value of the seized items were preserved.

Moreover, PO1 Guillao in his testimony said that he turned over the
confiscated items to PO1 Pagada during the inventory of the confiscated
items.

Quoted are the following statements of PO1 Guillao:

Q: What was the participation of PO Pagada in the preparation of this

inventory of confiscated items?
A: I turned over the confiscated items to him, sir.
 11

(TSN, Page 17, Direct-examination of Pros. Lingayo, dated August 10, 2016)

The above-cited narration is contrary to what PO1 Mirabueno said that he

was in possession of the two (2) heat sealed transparent plastic sachet the
whole time from seizure up to turn over to the Crime Laboratory. These are
inconsistencies which call for a careful scrutiny of the Honorable Court. Will
these inconsistencies raise a reasonable doubt on the chain of custody of the
seized dangerous drugs? Will these inconsistencies raise doubts on the
preservation of the integrity and the evidentiary value of the seized items as
they will be used to determine the guilt or innocence of the accused? What
heat sealed transparent plastic sachets were seen by Mr. Seva on top of the
table at the police station? What heat sealed transparent plastic sachets were
in the possession of PO1 Mirabueno which he placed in another plastic
container?

There were also gaps in the testimonies of the police officers on the
delivery of the items from the police station to the crime laboratory. PO1
Mirabueno testified that he arrived at the crime laboratory, he let the items be
received by the duty officer at that time. But he cannot recall the personnel of
the crime laboratory who received the items.

Quoted are the following statements of PO1 Mirabueno :

Q:And who handled that two sachets from the police station to the
crime laboratory?
A: I was the one, Your honor.
Q: And when you arrived at the crime laboratory, what did you do?
A: I let the items be received by the duty officer at hat time.
Q: Do you now the personnel of the crime laboratory who received the
two sachets that you delivered?
A: I cannot remember, sir.

(TSN, Page 7, Direct-examination of Pros. Lingayo, dated May 25, 2016)

However, as clearly indicated in the Request for Laboratory

Examination, it was PO1 Mark San P. Guillao who delivered the items, not
PO1 Mirabueno. Contrary to the testimony of PO1 Mirabueno, PO3 Andy
Cupido testified that he received from PO1 Mark San but forgot his last name,
the two (2) exhibits and the accompanying request.

Quoted are the following statements of PO3 Andy Cupido:

Q: From whom did you receive that request for laboratory examination
together with exhibits?
A: From Bayombong Police Station, Sir.
Q: Do you remember the name of the officer from whom did you
receive that request?
A: Yes, Sir.
Q: Who
A: I received it from PO1 Mark San P, I forgot his last name, sir.
 12

(TSN, Page 4, Direct-examination of Pros. Lingayo, dated September 7, 2016)

So, based on these testimonies, to whom did PO1 Mirabueno deliver

the items in his possession? What items were delivered by PO1 Guillao to
PO3 Cupido? These questions raised doubts on the identity of the items
confiscated at the scene and the items delivered to the crime laboratory.

Given the unique characteristic of dangerous and illegal drugs which

are indistinct, not readily identifiable, and easily susceptible to tampering,
alteration, or substitution, either by accident or otherwise, there must be strict
compliance with the prescribed measures to be observed during and after the
seizure of dangerous drugs and related paraphernalia, during the custody and
transfer thereof for examination, and at all times up to their presentation in
court.

In People v. Kamad, the court identified the links that the

prosecution must establish in the chain of custody in a buy-bust situation
to be as follows: first, the seizure and marking, if practicable, of the
illegal drug recovered from the accused by the apprehending officer;
second, the turnover of the illegal drug seized by the apprehending
officer to the investigating officer; third, the turnover by the
investigating officer of the illegal drug to the forensic chemist for
laboratory examination; and fourth, the turnover and submission of the
marked illegal drug seized by the forensic chemist to the court.
To repeat, the links in the chain of custody were not established
by the prosecution. First, the seizure was made by the apprehending
officer but the marking was made by the investigator who was not
present during the actual buy-bust operation and only arrived later, PO2
Pagada marked the illegal drugs as ACP-A1 and ACP-A2, not PO1
Mirabueno nor PO1 Guillao, the apprehending officers; second, the
illegal drugs were not turned over to the investigator, PO2 Pagada, such
that when PO2 Pagada testified, he clearly said in his testimony that the
one in-charge of the items taken or confiscated is the one who recovered
the items, not him as the investigating officer, hence, the second link
was not observed. Third, the turnover of the illegal drug by the
investigating officer to the forensic chemist. Again, this was not
observed by the police officers, PO3 Cupido testified that he received
the items from PO1 Guillao, who is not the investigating officer. Fourth,
although it was the forensic chemist who brought the items to court,
there was already a broken link with the non-compliance of the second
link to the chain of custody which will affect the succeeding links,
hence, the identity and the evidentiary value of the illegal drugs were not
preserved;

With these omissions, the presumption of regularity in the

performance of official duties by the police officers cannot prevail over
the presumption of innocence of the accused. If there are substantial
 13

gaps in the testimony of witnesses on the chain of custody of the seized

dangerous drugs, these raise doubts about the authenticity of the
evidence presented in court;

In sum, the prosecution, with all due respect, failed to prove the guilt of
the accused beyond reasonable doubt and deserves no less an acquittal and
ordered his released from detention.

WHEREFORE, premises considered, it is most respectfully prayed of

this Honorable Court that this Demurrer to Evidence be GRANTED.

Other reliefs just and equitable under the foregoing premises are also
prayed for.

Bayombong, Nueva Vizcaya, October 31, 2017.

FIDEL G. SANTOS
Counsel for Accused
156 Bonfal West, Bayombong, Nueva Vizcaya
PTR No. 1914695; dated December 1, 2017
Bayombong, Nueva Vizcaya
IBP Fees paid OR No. 1028768, dated December 1, 2016
MCLE Compliance No. V-0010617; September 17, 2015
Email add: fg_santos67@yahoo.com/Tel. No. 805-35-85
Roll No. 48362

The Clerk of Court

Branch 28, 2017
Regional Trial Court
Bayombong, Nueva Vizcaya

GREETINGS: Please take notice that the undersigned counsel for the
accused shall orally argue the foregoing Demurrer to Evidence on Friday,
November 3 2017 at 2:00 oclock in the afternoon and there and then, he shall
submit the same for the resolution of the Honorable Court.

FIDEL G. SANTOS

Copy furnished:
 14

Pros. Elorde Lingayo

Office of the Provincial Prosecutor
Bayombong, Nueva Vizcaya