REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES

Fifth Judicial Region

Regional Trial Court
Branch 47
Masbate City

Republic of the Philippines, Complainant Criminal Case No. 5555

for
vs. Violation of R.A. 9165

Shirly Oliva – Bargo, Accused

____________________________________________________________
DECISION
Here comes now for this Honorable Court a case of an alleged violation of
Republic Act No. 9165 otherwise known as the Comprehensive Dangerous
Drugs Act of 2002. The facts are as follows:

On or about the 15th of September 2019 around 4:00 PM, at Mangrovetum Hotel,
Brgy. Nursery, Masbate City, Masbate, through a poseur – buyer, 0.5 grams of
white crystalline substance enclosed in clear plastic sachet was bought from one
Shirly Oliva – Bargo. When subjected to forensics for confirmatory test it was
found out to be methampethamine hydrochloride otherwise known as “shabu”.
Having no authority to possess such drugs.

Police Officer III Ma. Frosta M. Deuda acting as the poseur – buyer seized such
item in exchange of Php 1,000.00, as the marked money. Upon buying and using
the pre – arranged signal, police operatives arrested the accused and do the
body frisk. The marked money was later on discovered on her left pocket. After
which, the drug bought, the money, and other things were collated. They were
marked and inventoried in front of the accused, the elected official (a barangay
councillor), the DOJ Representative, and the Media. Immediately turned – over to
the Crime Laboratory for confirmatory test, deposited, and presented in court.
They clearly follows the required procedure and observe the proper chain of
custody as to the pieces of evidence collected and gathered. That is as far as the
version of the prosecution.

On the onset of the accused version are as follows. Invoking the theory of frame
– up, inadmissibility of evidence, and non – observance of the proper chain of
custody. During the same date, the accused and the poseur – buyer were long
lost close friends who decided to meet each other that time. The accused being
engaged in the business of buy and sell of expensive high end watches and the
poseur buyer as its buyer paying on an instalment basis. During their meeting, as
the accused narrated, Php 1,000.00 was given to her as she believes as the
payment of her watch. After which, she was surprised when numerous police
officers in civilian clothes pinned her down, frisked her, and starts to seize items
which were allegedly not hers.

As to her surprise when the drug items are already coming out from her pockets
and the next thing that happens is she is already watching the marking and
inventory of seized items which were not hers. She is legitimately earning
through this business and she has nothing to do with drugs. This is all a frame up
and the first place not a buy bust. Granting for the sake argument, that it is a buy
bust, the proper chain of custody is not observed as the seized items are not
properly preserved its integrity as the deposit to judicial authority happens first
before the confirmatory test, when it should be the other way around. That is as
far as the accused has to say.

The court to settle on the issues:

First, the idea that chain of custody is not properly observed thus making the
pieces of evidence inadmissible. The court does not concur. The chain here is
unbroken and the links are clearly linked. This goes around two things, the
weight of the documents presented by the prosecution and the presumption of
regularity.
The documents presented by the prosecution shows dates of each step in the
chain. It was shown through the dates that the step by step process of the proper
custody were followed thus granting admissibility on the pieces of evidence
obtained.

Overthrowing the theory and offered counter – claim by the accused which were
not proven as being just mere speculations. Also, the police officers are granted
the presumption as to the regularity of their apprehension, search, and seizures.
He who alleges must prove. The accused just allege without proof. Thus, having
the burden of proof and his failure to overthrow such presumption, the
presumption stands and the accused lost its footing.

Lastly, to the theory that no buy bust is committed and it is just a frame up from
an alleged legitimate business meet up. The court resorts to the analysis of
human conduct, proof of character, prudence, and common sense. It was
established and proved that herein accused is a legitimate buyer and seller of
expensive high end watches and that she is a long-time friend of the poseur
buyer. Thus, making the meet – up just a regular transaction in the course of
business and not a buy bust.

However, other proof presented shows that the accused has a regular physical
store existent somewhere. Adding to the impropriety of meeting up clients in a
secluded private hotel create more absurdity. Having such, this court believes
that such transaction in such place creates more disclosure that the business is
something else and on this case, as shown, is a drug buy out. Thus, accused
theory is disproven and the prosecution stands.

Wherefore, SHIRLY OLIVA – BARGO, herein accused is found to be GUILTY

BEYOND REASONABLE DOUBT for the crime of Violation of Republic Act No.
9165, otherwise known as the Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002. A
commitment order be issued by the Bureau of Corrections for her confinement
and serving of sentence.

SO ORDERED.
HON. ELIAS A. BIEN JR.
Presiding Judge