People of the Philippines v.

Juan dela Cruz Page 1 of 5

Crim. Case No. 12345
For: Violation of Sec. 5 Art 2 of RA No. 9165 (Selling of Dangerous Drugs)

REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES

REGIONAL TRIAL COURT
TWELFTH JUDICIAL REGION
Branch 1
Iligan City

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES,

Plaintiff,
Crim. Case No. 12345
- versus - For: Violation of Sec. 5 Art 2 of
RA No. 9165 (Selling of
Dangerous Drugs)
Juan dela Cruz,
Accused.
x---------------------------------------------------x

MEMORANDUM
(for the Prosecution)

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, Article II of Republic Act
No. 9165, otherwise known as the Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002.

Section 5 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” (emphasis supplied)

On March 6, 2019, a surveillance team under the supervision of Senior Insp.

Ricardo Dalisay conducted a buy-bust operation against accused Juan dela Cruz. The
poseur-buyer handed a marked bill to accused who, in turn, gave him a plastic sachet of
shabu. Accused, thereupon, was arrested and charged with violation of Section 5 of RA
No. 9165.

1
Sec. 5, RA No. 9165
People of the Philippines v. Juan dela Cruz Page 2 of 5
Crim. Case No. 12345
For: Violation of Sec. 5 Art 2 of RA No. 9165 (Selling of Dangerous Drugs)

STATEMENT OF FACTS

As culled from the Criminal Complaint2 filed by the apprehending team dated
March 12, 2019, the following are the factual antecedents of the case:
“On March 4, 2019, at around 10:00 o’clock in the morning, Senior Insp. Ricardo Dalisay, chief of
Iligan City Police Station 1 Ricardo received an intelligence report about the illegal drug activities in
Saray-Tibanga, Iligan City of a certain "Joe," who later turned out to be accused Juan dela Cruz.
A surveillance team under the supervision of Senior Insp. Ricardo Dalisay looked for a police asset
to negotiate a drug deal with accused. In the morning of March 6, 2019, the surveillance team
reported to Senior Insp. Ricardo Dalisay that a confidential asset found by the team had already
negotiated a drug deal for the purchase of ₱200 worth of shabu from accused at the latter’s
house at No. 123 Sabayle Street, Brgy. Saray, Iligan City between 7:00 and 7:30 in the evening
of March 6, 2019. The surveillance team then prepared for a buy-bust operation, with PO3 Rigor
Soriano as team leader, and PO1 Mark Vargas, who was provided with two (2) marked ₱100-
bills, as poseur-buyer. At the appointed time and place, PO1 Vargas and the confidential
informant proceeded to accused’s house and knocked at the door. Accused opened the door and
the confidential informant introduced to him PO1 Vargas as a prospective buyer. PO1 Vargas
later handed the two (2) marked ₱100-bills to accused who, in turn, gave him a plastic sachet of
shabu. Thereupon, PO1 Vargas sparked his cigarette lighter, which was the pre-arranged signal
to the other members of the buy-bust team that the sale was consummated. Accused was
arrested and the two marked ₱100-bills recovered from him. Upon laboratory examination of the
item bought from accused, the same yielded positive for methylampetamine hydrochloride or
shabu weighing 0.041 gram.”

The indicting Information3 alleges:

“That on or about the 6th day of March, 2019, in the city of Iligan, 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 one (1) heat sealed transparent
plastic sachet containing methylampetamine hydrochloride weighing 0.041 gram.

Contrary to law.”

Duly arraigned on March 25, 2019, accused pleaded "Not Guilty" to the crime
charged.

In the Transcript of Stenographic Notes4, accused testified that what transpired

on that fateful evening of March 6, 2019 was an instigation and not a valid buy-bust
operation. He would make much of the fact that the transaction between him and the
police informant occurred on March 4, 2019, while the buy-bust operation took place on
March 6, 2019. To accused, the informant, by pretending that he was in need of shabu,
instigated or induced him to violate the anti-dangerous drugs law. He adds that the
prosecution was not able to prove that at the time of the police surveillance, he was
indeed looking for buyers of shabu, and that were it not for the inducement of the
informant that the latter would buy shabu, he would not have produced the same on
March 6, 2019.

2
Attached to Record of Case
3
Attached to Record of Case
4
Attached to Record of Case
People of the Philippines v. Juan dela Cruz Page 3 of 5
Crim. Case No. 12345
For: Violation of Sec. 5 Art 2 of RA No. 9165 (Selling of Dangerous Drugs)

ISSUES TO BE RESOLVED

I.
Whether or not accused is guilty beyond reasonable doubt of
Violation of Section 5, Article II of Republic Act 9165.

II.
Whether or not there was a valid entrapment.

ARGUMENTS/DISCUSSIONS

I. Accused Juan dela Cruz is guilty beyond reasonable

doubt of selling illegal drugs in violation of Section 5
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. Unisa5, 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, PO1 Vargas testified in court that dela Cruz handed him a
plastic sachet allegedly containing shabu after PO1 Vargas gave the two (2) marked
P100 bill to dela Cruz. 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 PO1 Vargas. PO1 Vargas 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 SPO1 Bugabuga of that office. In Physical Sciences Report No. D-1038-03,

5
G.R. No. 185721, September 28, 2011, 658 SCRA 305
People of the Philippines v. Juan dela Cruz Page 4 of 5
Crim. Case No. 12345
For: Violation of Sec. 5 Art 2 of RA No. 9165 (Selling of Dangerous Drugs)

Chemist Dela Rosa of the PNP Crime Laboratory ultimately certified that the contents of
the plastic sachet were examined and found to be 0.41 grams of methamphetamine
hydrochloride or shabu, a dangerous drug. And, thirdly, the Prosecution presented
the shabu, the two (2) marked ₱100.00 bill, and Chemist Dela Rosa’s Physical Sciences
Report No. D-1038-03 at the trial.

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,6 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,7 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.

6
Adm. Mat. R-278-RTJ & R 309-RTJ, May 30, 1986, En Banc, Per Curiam, 142 SCRA 124
7
142 SCRA 534, 1986
People of the Philippines v. Juan dela Cruz Page 5 of 5
Crim. Case No. 12345
For: Violation of Sec. 5 Art 2 of RA No. 9165 (Selling of Dangerous Drugs)

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.

RELIEFS SOUGHT

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

JUDGMENT OF CONVICTION be rendered against the JUAN DELA CRUZ for the
Violation of Section 5, Article II of Republic Act 9165.

Other relief just and equitable is likewise prayed for.

City of Iligan, Philippines, April 22, 2019.

By:

Alyana R. Arevalo-Dalisay
City Prosecutor
PTR NO.576503; 01/20/12; Iligan
IBP NO. 802969; 12/15/12; Iligan
Roll No. 34951
MCLE Compliance No. III-0014957; 05/05/12
Office of the City Prosecutor
Hall of Justice, Iligan City