Republic of the Philippines

Fourth Judicial Region

REGIONAL TRIAL COURT
Branch 55
Lucena City

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES,

Plaintiff,

CRIM. CASE NO.

2018-1544
- versus - For: VIOLATION OF
SEC 11, ARTICLE II,
RA 9165

EDWARD ANGANA y ABEL,

Accused.
x-------------------------------------x
DEMURRER TO EVIDENCE

COME NOW, accused, EDWARD ANGANA y ABEL,

assisted by the Public Attorney’s Office, through the
undersigned counsel, unto this Honorable Court, with prior
leave of court, most respectfully moves to dismiss the above-
entitled criminal case against him, by way of demurrer, due to
insufficiency of the prosecution’s evidence, and respectfully
state:

TIMELINESS OF DEMURRER TO EVIDENCE

OF THE PROSECUTION

On May 29, 2019 hearing, the Defense was given a period

of fifteen (15) days to file its Demurrer to Evidence or until June
13, 2019. Hence, this demurrer.

I.
PREFATORY STATEMENT

It is fundamental in the Constitution and basic in the

Rules of Court that the accused in a criminal case enjoys the
presumption of innocence until proven guilty. Likewise, it is
well-established in jurisprudence that the prosecution bears
the burden to overcome such presumption. If the prosecution
fails to discharge this burden, the accused deserves a judgment
of acquittal. On the other hand, if the existence of proof beyond
reasonable doubt is established by the prosecution, the accused
gets a guilty verdict. In order to merit conviction, the
prosecution must rely on the strength of its own evidence and
not on the weakness of evidence presented by the defense.1

Reasonable doubt is that doubt engendered by an

investigation of the whole proof and an inability after such
investigation to let the mind rest each upon the certainty of
guilt. Absolute certainty of guilt is not demanded by the law to
convict a criminal charge, but moral certainty is required as to
every proposition of proof requisite to constitute the offense.2

II.

STATEMENT OF THE CASE

Accused, EDWARD ANGANA y ABEL, was indicted of the

crime of Violation of Section 11, Article II, RA 9165 in an
Information which states:

That on the 14th day of September, 2018, at Sitio Galong,

Brgy. Dagatan, Municipality of Dolores, Province of Quezon,
Philippines and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court,
the above-named accused without being authorized by law, did
then and there willfully, unlawfully and feloniously have in his
possession, control and custody five (5) heat sealed transparent
plastic sachets containing 0.0164 gram, 0.00344 gram, 0.00146
gram, 0.00153 gram and 0.0238 gram of methamphetamine
hydrochloride (shabu), a dangerous drug.

Contrary to law.

1
People v. Hilario, GR. No.210610 (2018)
2
People v. Uy, 392 Phil. 773, 782-783 (2000)
 On January 30, 2019, during arraignment of the accused,
EDWARD ANGANA y ABEL with the assistance of the
undersigned counsel de oficio, he pleaded not guilty to the
offense charged against him. Thereafter trial proceedings
ensued.

III.
THEORY/EVIDENCE FOR THE PROSECUTION

On February 20, 2019, SPO2 IAN SAGUCIO was

presented by the Prosecution as its witness. Thereafter, no any
other witness was presented by the Prosecution until it rested
its case. Thus, SPO2 IAN SAGUCIO was the sole witness of the
Prosecution.

On the same date, the prosecution orally offered the

following documents in evidence : Exhibit “A”- the Judicial
Affidavit of SPO2 IAN SAGUCIO ; Exhibit “D”- Search Warrant
No. Q-517 (18) ; Exhibit “E”- the Pre-Operation Report; Exhibit
“F” - Certificate of Coordination; Exhibit “G” - the Request for
the Laboratory Examination; Exhibit “H” and “I” the Receipt of
the property seized and the Certificate of Orderly; Exhibit “J” -
the Chain of Custody; Exhibit “K” - the Photocopy of the Police
Blotter; Exhibit “L” - the Pictures taken during the search;
Exhibit “M” - the Chemistry Report No. D-925-18; Exhibit “M-
1” the plastic container; Exhibit “M-1a to e”- the sachets taken
with markings EAA-1 to 5.

Testimony of SPO2 IAN SAGUCIO

In the course of his testimony he identified his judicial

affidavit. SPO2 IAN SAGUCIO testified that on September 14,
2018 at around 7:30 in the morning he was part of the team
who allegedly served the search warrant to the house at
Barangay Dagatan, Dolores, Quezon. He also said that he
served as the searcher at that time. SPO2 IAN SAGUCIO said
that he recovered a folded paper which contained the alleged
five plastic sachet of shabu in the presence of two witnesses who
were baragay officials.

On cross examination, SPO2 IAN SAGUCIO admitted that

there is no other proof aside from his oral testimony to prove
that the barangay officials were in his side when he and other
police officers arrived at the premise around 5 o’clock in the
morning. He also stated that these barangay officials did not
sign the said Search Warrant. He further admitted that there
were no pictures showing the alleged plastic sachets of shabu
in the possession of the accused. According to him, the alleged
plastic sachets of shabu were placed in evidence bag and were
held by him for eight (8) hours without putting them in locker/s.

After the testimony of SPO2 IAN SAGUCIO, no other

witness was presented by the Prosecution to prove that indeed
the accused was in possession the alleged plastic sachets of
shabu.

III.

ARGUMENTS and DISCUSSION

It is well settled rule that the substance confiscated from

the accused should be the very same substance offered in court.
Thus in order to observe this indispensable requirement, the
Court adopted the chain of custody rule.

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
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.3

As the means of ensuring the establishment of the chain

of custody, Section 21 (1) of RA No. 9165 specifies that:

(1) The apprehending team having initial custody and

control of the drugs shall, immediately after seizure and
confiscation, physically inventory and photograph the
same in the presence of the accused or the person/ s from
whom such items were confiscated and/ or seized, or
his/her representative or counsel, a representative from
the media and the Department of Justice (DOJ), and any
elected public official who shall be required to sign the
copies of the inventory and be given a copy thereof.4

Section 21 (a) of the Implementing Rules and

Regulations (IRR) of R.A. No. 9165 complements Section 21(l) of
RANo.9165, to wit:

(a) The apprehending officer/team having initial custody

and control of the drugs shall, immediately after
seizure and confiscation, physically inventory and
photograph the same in the presence of the accused or
the person/ s from whom such items were confiscated

3
People v. Dela Rosa, GR. No. 230228 (2017)

4
R.A 9165, Sec. 21 (1)
 and/ or seized, or his/her representative or counsel, a
representative from the media and the Department of
Justice (DOJ), and any elected public official who shall
be required to sign the copies of the inventory be given
copy thereof: Provided; that the physical inventory and
photograph shall be conducted at the place where the
search warrant is served; or at the nearest police
station or at the nearest office of the apprehending
officer/team, whichever is practicable, in case of
warrantless seizures; Provided, further, that non-
compliance with these requirements under justifiable
grounds, as long as the integrity and the evidentiary
value of the seized items are properly preserved by the
apprehending officer/team, shall not render void and
invalid such seizures of and custody over said items;5

Based on the foregoing, Section 21 of R.A. No. 9165

requires the apprehending team, after seizure and confiscation,
to immediately conduct a physically inventory; and photograph
the· same in the presence of (1) the accused or the persons
from whom such items were confiscated and/or seized, or
his/her representative or counsel, (2) a representative from
the media and (3) the DOJ, and (4) any elected public official
who shall be required to sign the copies of the inventory
and be given a copy thereof.6

In addition, Section.21 of the IRR of R.A. No. 9165 provides

that the physical inventory and photograph shall be conducted
at the place where the search warrant is served; or at the
nearest police station or at the nearest office of the

5
Ibid., 5

6
Ibid.,
apprehending officer/team, whichever is practicable, in
case of warrantless seizures. It further states that non-
compliance with these requirements shall not render void and
invalid such seizures of and custody over the confiscated items
provided that such non-compliance were under justifiable
grounds and the integrity and the evidentiary value of the
seized items are properly preserved by the apprehending
officer or team.7

Interestingly, Section 21 of R.A. No. 9165 was amended

recently by R.A’. No. 10640, which became effective on July 15,
2014, and it essentially added the provisions contained in the
IRR with a few modifications, to wit:

(1) The apprehending team having initial custody and control

of. the dangerous drugs, controlled precursors and essential
chemicals, instruments/paraphernalia and/or laboratory
equipment shall, immediately after seizure and confiscation,
conduct a physical inventory of the seized items and photograph
the same in the presence of the accused or the persons from
whom such items were confiscated and/ or seized, or his/her
representative or counsel, with an elected public official and a
representative of the National Prosecution Service or the media
who shall be required to sign the copies of the inventory and be
given a copy thereof: Provided, That the physical inventory and
photograph shall be conducted at the place where the search
warrant is served; or at the nearest police station or at the
nearest office of the apprehending officer/team, whichever is
practicable, in case of warrantless seizures: Provided, finally,
That noncompliance of these requirements under justifiable
grounds, as long as the integrity and the evidentiary value of
the seized items are properly preserved by the apprehending

7
Ibid., 6
officer /team, shall not render void and invalid such seizures
and custody over said items.8

Notably, in the amendment of R.A. No. 10640, the

apprehending team is now required to conduct a physical
inventory. of the seized items and photograph the same in (1)
the presence of the accused or the persons from whom such
items were confiscated and/or seized, or his/her
representative or counsel, (2) with an elected public official
and (3) a representative of the National Prosecution Service
or the media who shall be required to sign the copies of the
inventory and be given a copy thereof.

Clearly, the prosecution failed to sufficiently comply with

the chain of custody rule.

As a rule, strict compliance with the prescribed procedure

is required because of the illegal drug's unique characteristic
that renders it indistinct, not readily identifiable, and easily
open to tampering, alteration, or substitution either by accident
or otherwise.9

The exception found in the IRR of R.A. 9165 comes into

play when strict compliance with the prescribed procedures is
not observed. This saving clause, however, applies only (1)
where the prosecution recognized the procedural lapses,
and thereafter explained the cited justifiable grounds, and
(2) when the prosecution established that the integrity and
evidentiary vale of the evidence seized had been
preserved. The prosecution, thus, loses the benefit of invoking
the presumption of regularity and bears the burden of proving

8
Ibid., 7

9
People v. Cayas, GR. No. 206888 (2016)
with moral certainty that the illegal drug presented in court is
the same drug that was confiscated from the accused during his
arrest.10

What happened here explicitly shows that the prosecution

failed to recognize its procedural lapses and give a justifiable
ground for the non-compliance with Section 21 of R.A. No.
9165. More especially, they were not able to explain the absence
of a representative of the DOJ and failed to prove the presence
of the public official. While the prosecution was able to present
the inventory of the seized item, neither the persons required by
the law were able to sign the search warrant and the inventory,
which strengthen the fact that they were not actually present at
the time of the said search and seizure. Nowhere in the
documents found that there was reasonable ground to deviate
from such strict compliance, hence there is an absolute failure
on the part of the prosecution to ascertain the integrity and
evidentiary value of the evidence or the thing seized. They
cannot feign ignorance of the exacting standards under Section
21 of Republic Act No. 9165. Police officers are presumed and
are required to know the laws they are charged with executing.

To ensure conviction in illegal possession of dangerous

drugs, the following elements must be established: (1) the
accused was in possession of the dangerous drugs; (2) such
possession was not authorized by law; and (3) the accused was
freely and consciously aware of being in possession of the
dangerous drugs.11

10
Ramos v. People, GR. No. 227336 (2018)

11
People v. Del Mundo, GR. No. 208095 (2017)
 Following the elements enumerated, it is undeniable that
the accused is completely unaware of the existence of the
alleged dangerous drugs in his premise. Accordingly, as held in
the case of People of the Philippines v. Rolando Zaragoza:

“xxx illegal possession of regulated drugs is mala

prohibita, and, as such, criminal intent is not an essential
element. However, the prosecution must prove that the accused
had the intent to possess (animus posidendi) the drugs.”

Here, the prosecution failed to prove that the accused has

the intent to possess such either actual or constructively. It is
also hard to believe that the accused has direct input or control
over such drugs even the same found in his premise. Further,
the innocence of the accused is bolstered by the fact that his
medical record patently shows his negative exposure from any
illegal substance. It is submitted that in order for the accused
to be found guilty for the crime or offense being charged,
quantum of evidence required should obtained, therefore there
must be proof beyond reasonable doubt to charge the accused
of the said offense under the law. Unfortunately, the
prosecution failed to support and to establish the guilt of the
accused beyond reasonable doubt.

IV.
CONCLUSION

In the above case, the quantum of proof required to justify

a conviction for a criminal offense was not satisfied by the
prosecution.

The testimony of the prosecution witnesses were not

enough to prove the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable
doubt in the above case. In absence of proof in complying with
the requirement for conviction for Violation of Section 11, Article
II, RA 9165 , the guilt of the accused, EDWARD ANGANA y
ABEL, were not proven beyond reasonable doubt.

The prosecutions job is to prove that the accused is guilty

beyond reasonable doubt. Thus, when the evidence for the
prosecution is insufficient to sustain a conviction, it must be
rejected and the accused absolved and released at once.12

PRAYER

WHEREFORE, premises considered, it is most respectfully

prayed of this Honorable Court that the case against the
accused, EDWARD ANGANA y ABEL for insufficiency of
evidence.

Other reliefs which are just and equitable are likewise

prayed for.

Lucena City, June 13, 2019.

Respectfully submitted:

DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE-
PUBLIC ATTORNEY’S OFFICE
Lucena City District Office
3/F Midtown Pavilion Building
Que. Ave. cor. Gov. Guinto St.,
Lucena City, Quezon

12
People v. Mamalias, 385 Phil. 499, 514 (2000)
 By:

MICHEL B. PORTUGALIZA
Public Attorney II
Pursuant to RA 9406
Noted by:

CARMI D. MAGSINO-ARAZA
DPA/Public Attorney III

NOTICE

ATTY. FRANCISCO A. PUA, JR.

CLERK OF COURT V
RTC Branch 55

Greetings! Please be advised that the undersigned is

submitting the above Demurrer to Evidence for consideration
and resolution of the Honorable Court without further hearing
thereto.

ATTY. MICHEL B. PORTUGALIZA

Copy furnished:

PROS. LAURA JEAN ABANDO

Office of the City Prosecutor
4th Floor Lucena City Government Complex
Diversion Road, Kanlurang Mayao, Lucena City