Republic of the Philippines

REGIONAL TRIAL COURT

FOURTH JUDICIAL REGION
Branch 16, CAVITE CITY

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES,

- versus - CRIM. CASE NO. 168-13

FOR: Viol. of Sec.5 R.A. 9165
CRIS DE LEYOS y LANZA AND
IDA DE LEYOS Y LANZA,
Accused.
x-------------------- x

PETITION FOR BAIL

ACCUSED, CRIS DE LEYOS AND IDA DE LEYOS, by

themselves, unto this Honorable Court most respectfully state, that:

1. Accused are charged before this Honorable Court for the

Violation of Sections 5 of Art.II of R.A. 9165 and the Honorable

Investigating Prosecutor recommended “NO BAIL ” for their

temporary liberty;

2. Both Accused desire to exercise their constitutional right to

bail as a matter of right, Sec. 4. of The Revised Rules of Criminal

Procedure, thus:

“BAIL A MATTER OF RIGHT; EXCEPTION.-All

persons in custody shall be admitted to bail as a matter of
right, with sufficient sureties, or released on recognizance
as prescribed by law or this Rule (a) before or after
conviction by the Metropolitan Trial Court, Municipal Trial
Court, Municipal trial Court in Cities, or Municipal Circuit
Trial Court and (b) before conviction by the Regional
Trial Court of an offense not punishable by death,
reclusion perpetua or life imprisonment”.

3. Under the Constitution and by statute, every person

charged with an offense , including capital offense, is entitled to bail,

as a matter of right, before conviction . Moreover, under the New

Rules on Criminal Procedure, it states that, “ No person charged with

a capital offense, or an offense punishable by reclusion perpetua or

life imprisonment, shall be admitted to bail when evidence of guilt is

strong”. (Section 7 Rule 114 of the New Rules on Criminal Procedure)

In other words, when the evidence of guilt is not strong against the

accused who is charged with a capital offense, the granting of bail for

his temporary liberty becomes a matter of discretion;

4. It is submitted that the evidence for the prosecution in

support of the charge is not strong as to deny the accused of their

constitutional right to bail. This is shown by the following

considerations:

a. Serious irregularities were committed by

the police officers in the performance of their duties

which negated the presumption of regularity in

the performance of official duty .

The police officers acted upon an unverified

information supplied by unidentified informant. The

police officers did not conduct casing and surveillance

operation to verify the raw information their office

received from the asset. It must be noted that

surveillance is of high and extreme importance before a

drug operation is conducted because it not uncommon

that innocent and helpless civilians are mistakenly

apprehended, detained and wrongfully accused and

charged in court because of some wrong and unverified

information supplied by unidentified informer/s of police

officers.

Second, there was no test buy operation conducted

on the supposed subject to confirm the raw information.

A test buy is an operation intended to be utilized by

narcotics operative/s for the purpose of confirming the

information received from assets and informants.

Third, the police officers failed to comply with the

mandatory requirements under S.ec. 21 0f R.A. 9165. And

seemingly, police officers have a penchant for conducting

drug operations in the manner convenient to them. They

should be guided by the “Standing Operating Procedures

No. 97-02, Anti Drug Operational Procedures, dated

September 1, 1997 issued by the Philippine National

Police Narcotics Group and the provisions of RA 9165.

Because both lay down the procedures to be observed in

the conduct of buy bust operations. In this case, the

police officers blatantly disregarded the mandatory

provision of Section 21 of RA 9165, which states:

Sec.21 Custody and disposition of

Confiscated , seized an / or Surrendered
Dangerous Drug, Plant Source of Dangerous
drugs, Controlled precursors and essential
chemicals , instrument and paraphernalia /
and/or Laboratory equipment .-the PDEA
shall take charge and have custody of all
dangerous drug, plant source of dangerous
drug, controlled precursors and essential
chemicals, as well as instrument/
paraphernalia and /or laboratory equipment
so confiscated, seized and /or surrendered,
 for proper disposition in the following
manner:
1. The apprehending team
having initial custody and control of
the drugs shall immediately after the
seizure and confiscation , physically
inventory and photograph the same in
the presence of the accused or the
person/s from whom such item were
confiscated and/or seized , or his
representative or counsel, a
representative from the media and the
Department of Justice, and any
elected public official who shall be
required to sign the copies of the inventory
and to be given a copy thereof. (Sec.21,
RA 9165) (emphasis ours)

The ruling of the Supreme Court in People vs. Tokohisa

Kimura, et al, GR. No. 130805, April 27, 2004, is equally

relevant and applicable to the case at bar. It was held:

“The records of the case do not show that the police

operatives complied with the procedure in the custody of
seized prohibited and regulated drugs as embodied in
Dangerous Drugs Board Regulation No.3 Series of 1979,
i.e. any apprehending team having initial custody
and control of the said drugs and/or paraphernalia,
should immediately after seizure or confiscation,
have the same physically inventoried and
photographed in the presence of the accused, if
there be any, and /or his representative , who shall
be required to sign copies of the inventory and be
give a copy thereof. In this case, there was no
inventory made in the crime scene despite the fact
that Maj. Anso testified that he saw eighteen packages
neatly wrapped in a newspaper but the inventory was
already made in the headquarters.” (emphasis
ours.)

Calling the above ruling in the present case, the

failure of the police officers to take photographs and make

inventory at the scene of the crime puts to light the

dubiousness of the alleged buy bust operation.

While the court is mindful that law enforcers enjoy

the presumption of regularity in the performance of their

 official duties, this presumption cannot prevail over the

constitutional right of the accused to be presumed

innocent and it cannot, by itself, constitute proof of guilt

beyond reasonable doubt.(Pp. vs. Sapal , 328 SCRA

417)

b. The Accused vehemently deny all the statements

made by the arresting officers as untrue, including the

offenses with which they are being accused of.

c. Considering that the prosecution witnesses may

be the same police officers who executed the “

Pinagsamang sinumpaang salaysay ” , it is submitted that

if they testify according to what they had stated, and it is

presumed that they will do so, and will not depart from it,

it may be stated here and now that the evidence that will

be presented against the accused in the above –numbered

criminal cases, will not constitute even a probable cause ,

much less strong evidence of any guilt against both the

accused.

PRAYER

WHEREFORE, in view of the foregoing, it is most respectfully

prayed of this Honorable court that: (1) a hearing be immediately

scheduled to determine whether or not the evidence of the prosecution

against all the accused is strong; and (2) after hearing, both
the accused be granted bail for their provisional liberty in the amount

left to the sound discretion of the Honorable Court.

Respectfully submitted this 29th day of July, 2013 in Cavite City.

BY:

CRIS DE LEYOS
Accused

IDA LANZA DE LEYOS

Accused

NOTICE

THE CLERK OF COURT

RTC Branch 16
Cavite City

G R E E T I N G S:

Please take note that the undersigned Counsel de Officio will submit the
foregoing Petition for Bail for the consideration and approval of the Honorable Court
on August 6, 2013 at 8:30A.M. or soon thereafter as counsel or matter may be
heard.

CRIS DE LEYOS

IDA LANZA DE LEYOS

COPY FURNISHED:

Hon. FLOREL BRITANICO

Office of the City Prosecutor
Hall of Justice
Cavite City