Republic of the Philippines

National Capital Judicial Region
REGIONAL TRIAL COURT
Branch 68
Pasig City

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Criminal Case No. 20734-D-SJ

                                      Plaintiff,
            
  - versus -                         For: Possession of dangerous drugs                       
under Sec. 11 of RA 9165                                                                           
MOHAMMAD NOUR MACALANDONG
TABAO
                                    Accused.
x - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -x

PLEA BARGAINING PROPOSAL

The Accused MOHAMMAD NOUR MACALANDONG TABAO,

through the undersigned counsel, most respectfully submits the following
Plea Bargaining Proposal for the Honorable Court’s consideration and
approval, and state that:

1. The accused has been charged for violation of Section 11 of Republic

Act 9165 or the Revised Dangerous Drugs Act punishable by Twelve
Years and One day to Twenty Years.
2. That on August 15, 2017 the Supreme Court En Banc in the case of
Salvador Espinosa, Jr. Vs Hon. Frank E. Lobrigo GR no. 226679
decided that Section 23 of Republic Act 9165, which barred plea
bargaining in any case involving violation of the provisions of the
said statute as unconstitutional as being against the rule making
authority of the Supreme Court under Section 5(5) of Article VIII of
the 1987 Constitution1.
3. That the said decision of the Supreme Court has paved the way for
herein accused to submit this Offer for Plea Barganing.

1
Notice of En Banc Resolution by the Supreme Court, April 10, 2018
 4. That the Accused comes before the Honorable Court with this Plea
Bargaining Agreement after the prosecution has rested it’s case.
Notwithstanding Rule 116, Sec. 2 which allows the plea to a lesser
offense at the arraignment, the Supreme Court has sustained that a
plea bargaining agreement maybe entered into even after the said
stage of the case and may even extend after the prosecution has
rested its case.
5. The Supreme Court ruled in the case of Daan vs. Sandigan Bayan
2
that the propriety of accepting a plea bargaining offer although not
demandable by right, however is within the sound discretion of the
court.
6. That herein accused hereby withdraws his plea of not guilty for
violation of Sec. 11 of RA 9165 for possession of illegal drugs and
offers to enter a plea of guilty to the lesser offense of Sec. 12 of
RA9165 or Possession of Equipment, Instrument, Apparatus and
other Paraphernalia for dangerous drugs in accordance with A.M.
No. 18-03-16SC or the Adoption of the Plea Bargaining Framework
in Drugs Cases.
7. That the said lesser offense has the penalty of Six Months and One
day to four years and a fine ranging from P10,000.00 to P50,000.00.
8. That the accused be granted in accordance likewise with the above
A.M. No. 18-03-16SC of a straight penalty of One year be imposed
for the above lesser offense pleaded to.
9. That the accused would like to manifest likewise the fact that he was
detained for a period from October 22, 2015 to April 15, 2017and that
the same be taken into consideration as time served for the penalty
that the court may be find proper for this particular instance. A copy
of a certification from the City Jail of San Juan Attesting to the above
detention period is hereunto attached as Annex “1”.

2
Gr. No.s 163971-77, March 28, 2008
Respectfully and Humbly submitted,
6 August 2018

ATTY. MICHAEL MITO-ON J. ALI

               Counsel for the Accused
#5 London Tech St., University Hills
Subdivision, Barangay 80
Caloocan City
IBP # 046009; July 4, 2018
PTR # CAL-9415533; 10 January 2018
Caloocan City
SC Roll of Attorney’s No. 63738
MCLE No. V 0025970
Contact No. : 02-505-3110

Copy Furnish:

Assistant City Prosecutor _____________________

Office of the City Prosecutor
San Juan City

NOTICE OF HEARING

THE BRANCH CLERK OF COURT

Regional Trial Court, Branch 68
San Juan City
Greetings!
      
Please submit the foregoing motion for the kind consideration and approval of the
Honorable Court upon receipt hereof.

                                                                                
MICHAEL MITO-ON JACINTO ALI
Counsel for the Accused

                                           
Copy furnished by personal service:

___________________________________
Assistant City Prosecutor
     

  

Republic of the Philippines

National Capital Judicial Region
REGIONAL TRIAL COURT
Branch 68
Pasig City
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Criminal Case No. 20734-D-SJ
                                      Plaintiff,
            
  - versus -                         For: Possession of dangerous drugs                       
under Sec. 11 of RA 9165                                                                           
MOHAMMAD NOUR MACALANDONG
TABAO
                                    Accused.
x - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -x

MOTION TO ENTER INTO PLEA BARGAINING

The Accused MOHAMMAD NOUR MACALANDONG TABAO,

through the undersigned counsel, most respectfully submits the following
Motion for consideration of the Honorable Court:

1. That herein accused’s case for violation of Section 11& 15 of Republic

Act 9165 or the Dangerous Drugs Act was initiated some time in
2015.
2. That at the time of the institution of the case, Section 23 of the above
mentioned statute was still in force which prohibited the plea
bargaining of any case involving the violation of the provisions of
RA 9165;
3. That in the advent of the Landmark decision of the Supreme Court
in the case of Salvador Espinosa, Jr. Vs. Hon. Frank E Lobrigo
promulgated August 15, 2017, which held the abovementioned
section unconstitutional and effectively allowed plea bargaining in
cases involving violations of RA 9165;
4. That the Supreme Court in various instances has ruled that Plea
Barganing may be entered into even after arraignment, and in fact
even emphasized that it may be entered to in any time prior to a
decision being arrived at by the Court3;

3
In Capati v. Dr. Ocampo, 199 Phil. 230, 234[ 1982],
 5. That it is likewise emphasized that decisions of the Supreme Court
which favors the accused are given retro-active effect and covers
cases which are already instituted at the time the decision came
about.
6. That it is emphasized that the accused is a first time offender and in
consideration of the very small amount of the prohibited substance
involved in the captioned case.
7. The Supreme Court in the case of Daan Hari4 vs. Hon.
Sandiganbayan, ruled that plea bargaining even after the
prosecution has rested its case can be had provided that the
prosecution has not been able to successfully present a strong case.
8. In light of the above, the following narration provides a glimpse into
the flaws of the case presented by the prosecution through its
primary witnesses:
a. The present case revolves around members of then Philippine
National Police Anti-Illegal Drugs Special Operaions Task
Force (PNP AIDSOTF) tried to implement a search warrant
against a person in the name of Edwin Feranil aka Bambi on
September 21, 2015. The said warrant was to be served at the
residence of Bambi on Blk 10 Road 8 Brgy. West Crame San
Juan City. SPO4 Anthony R. Barangan, one of the
implementing officers of PNP AIDSOTF accosted herein
accused, who was trying to vacate the vicinity, in the area of
the said residence supposedly for fear of causing a commotion
which would jeopardize their ongoing operations.
b. SPO4 Barangan allegedly found a sachet of shabu on the body
of herein accused in violation of Section 11 of R.A. 9165.
c. The prosecution presented among others the testimony of
SPO4 Barangan to prove the allegation that herein accused had
in his possession the said sachet of shabu. Furthermore, the

4
Daan vs. Sandigan Bayan, Gr. No.s 163971-77, March 28, 2008
 prosecution further presented the testimony of Sgt. Quiton, the
investigation officer assigned to the case who likewise was
present during the PNP AIDSOTF operations on the same day.
Also included in the evidence presented by the prosecution is
the Laboratory findings that the said sachet tested positive for
shabu, and the various documentary evidence to support the
chain of custody of the sachet of shabu.
d. For a prosecution of the offense of illegal possession of illegal
drugs under Sec. 11 of the RA9165, the Supreme Court has laid
down the following elements:
X x x(1) the accused is in possession of the object
identified as a prohibited or regulated drug; (2) such
possession is not authorized by law; and (3) the accused
freely and consciously possessed the said drug x x x.5

e. The prosecution has not shown sufficient evidence to establish

the above elements. Particularly the third element “the accused
freely and consciously possessed the said drug”. The Supreme
Court further elaborated on the said element in the same case :
X x x It has been ruled that there can be no conviction for
the subject offense unless the prosecution shows that the
accused knowingly possessed the prohibited articles in
his person, or that animus possidendi is shown to be
present together with his possession or control of such
article x x x6

f. The prosecution in the present case failed to establish through

the evidence they submitted the link between the accused and
the illegal drug contained in the sachet presented in court.

5
People of the Philippines vs. Tanael GR no.200797 January 12, 2015
6
Ibid
 g. SPO4 Anthony Barangan in his Affidavit labelled “affidavit of
arresting officer”: 7
“that, upon arrival at the said premises an unidentified
male person suddenly scampered along road 8 sensing
that it might pre-empt the scheduled operation I
immediately gave chase and subsequently collared the
same, which later identified as Mohammad Nour
Macalandong Tabao.8
During interrogation the undersigned was able to
recover one heat sealed transparent plastic sachet
containing white crystalline substance from his right
pocket when the undersigned requested the suspect to
empty his pocket. Then I immediately apprised him of
his rights under the constitution but he opted to remain
silent9
The marking of evidence and physical inventory of the
evidence were done in the place where it was
obtained.”10

h. When the prosecution Presented SPO4 Barangan, he said the

following matters:

Q: and after you have noticed that there was a male

person going towards you what happened next?

A: WE gave chase and I was able to get him. Then I

introduced myself as police officer, ma’am. 11
i. During the cross examination by the undersigned counsel of
SPO4 Barangan he had the following to say:
7
See Rollo
8
Affidavit of Arrest, Par. 3, See Rollo
9
Affidavit of Arrest, Par. 4, See Rollo
10
Affidavit of Arrest, Par. 5, See Rollo
11
Page 4 TSN August 16, 2016
 Q: So upon approaching him as you explained him to
empty his pockets you saw that item?
A: Yes, Sir.
Q:Was it only you when the accused was arrested?
A: No, Sir.
Q: Who else?
A: SPO3 Quiton, Sir.12

j. It must be pointed out that SPO4 Barangan is alleging that it

was not only him who ran after the accused. However, when
it was SPO3 Quiton who was put on the witness stand, he had
the following to say during direct examination:
Q: upon arrival thereat, what happened if any?
A: upon arrival at the target place, an unidentified male
person who immediately ran away and HE was chased
by SPO4 Barangan, ma’am.
Q: where was you exact location during that time when
there was a male person who ran away?
A: I was walking towards the area of road 8 ma’am.
Q: How far would that be from Road 8, if you can
estimate?13
A:Almost near the house of the subject, Ma’am
Q: can you please give us an estimate?
A:From where i am seated up to the door of the court
room (which the parties agreed to be more or less 5-6
meters)
Q: So when you saw that male person who ran away,
what did you do if any?
A: I was not able to react at once but IT WAS SPO4
Barangan who chased that person, ma’am.
12
Page 12 TSN August 16, 2016
13
Page 4, TSN September 27, 2016
 Q: Was he able to catch up with that male person?
A: yes, ma’am
Q: what happened next, if any?
A: I was already at the door of our subject and he
brought that person and told me that he was able to
confiscate illegal drugs from that male person ma’am.
k. During the cross examination of SPO3 Quiton, the following
were said:
Q: upon arriving at the said residence, how did SPO4
Barangan inform you that he was able to accost someone
and confiscate illegal drugs?
A: when he brought the person in front of me, sir.
Q: Were you in front of SPO4 Barangan when he
confiscating the sachet from the accused?
A: No, Sir.
l. Herein accused would like to point out that SPO4 Barangan, in
his allegation that he found the sachet of white crystalline
powder which eventually was found to be shabu, in his
affidavit, he said that he gave chase to the accused. In open
court, he said “we” gave chase. In fact in his testimony during
cross examination, he was asked if he was by himself when the
accused was arrested after having found the contraband; his
response was that he was with SPO3 Quiton. However, this is
clearly not the case according to the testimony of the latter. In
fact, SPO3 Quiton said when he got at the area of Bambi’s
house, SPO4 Barangan brought with him the accused already
accosted and already in hand the sachet of white crystalline
substance.

m. The prosecution, outside of SPO4 Barangan’s bare allegation

that he found the sachet when it was brought out of the right
 pocket of the accused has not been supported by any evidence
whether it be testimonial, documentary or even circumstantial
that it indeed the same was taken from the accused. At best,
the prosecution was able to establish the presence of the
accused in the place where the supposed offense was
committed, however, there is no evidence showing without a
doubt that the said sachet was indeed otbtained from the
accused. Presumption of regularity in the conduct of one’s
duty will not stand in the present case. Although it is accepted
through law and jurisprudence that the presumption absent
any overriding factors gives the benefit of the doubt towards
our law enforcement officers, the same cannot be said in the
present case. The fact that SPO4 Barangan in his testimony is
trying to paint a scenario where the arrest and confiscation
was done with his colleagues around and the fact that it was
not is a red flag. It must be pointed out further more, that
despite the fact that the serving of the search warrant in the
house of Bambi is part of a pre-planned operation where other
warrants were to be served, the officers of AIDSOTF was
unable to comply with the statutory requirements of RA 9165
in so far as the check and balance of securing the chain of
custody of the contraband in the form of statutory witnesses
required in the inventory of the same.
n. Furthermore, the identity of the substance, is likewise put in
doubt due to the fact that SPO4 Barangan, allegedly labelled
the sachet with his initials. When he himself in open court
admitted that the protocol was to label the same with the
initials of the accused.

o. Herein accused would also like to point out that despite the
fact that the matters being raised by herein accused in so far as
 in the conduct of his arrest, the manner in which the
contraband was labelled and handled, and even the absence of
the statutory witnesses on their own have been considered by
the Supreme Court to be things a conviction can still be had, if
taken together, it is submitted that it is enough to create the
shadow of a doubt or vice versa taken together it has already
established that the prosecution in the evidences they
submitted have failed to establish the elements of the crime
being prosecuted. Considering the myriad of red flags done in
the prosecution of the said case, it must then follow that the
presumption of innocence of the accused herein must stand,
and that the present case must be dismissed for not having
established beyond a shadow of a doubt that the accused
committed the crime being charged against him.

PRAYER
WHEREFORE premises considered, it is humbly prayed upon this
Honorable Court that the accused be allowed to enter into a plea
bargaining agreement with the prosecution for the above captioned case.

City of Caloocan for the City of San Juan

6 August 2018

ATTY. MICHAEL MITO-ON J. ALI

               Counsel for the Accused
#5 London Tech St., University Hills
Subdivision, Barangay 80
Caloocan City
IBP # 046009; July 4, 2018
PTR # CAL-9415533; 10 January 2018
 Caloocan City
SC Roll of Attorney’s No. 63738
MCLE No. V 0025970
Contact No. : 02-505-3110
Copy Furnish:

Assistant City Prosecutor _____________________

Office of the City Prosecutor
San Juan City

Republic of the Philippines

National Capital Judicial Region
REGIONAL TRIAL COURT
Branch 68
Pasig City

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Criminal Case No. 20734-D-SJ

                                      Plaintiff,
            
  - versus -                         For: Possession of dangerous drugs                       
under Sec. 11 of RA 9165                                                                           
MOHAMMAD NOUR MACALANDONG
TABAO
                                    Accused.
x - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -x

MOTION TO WITHDRAW APPEARANCE

COMES NOW the undersigned counsel for the accused, unto this
Honorable Court, most respectfully states that :

Due to various professional and personal reasons and conflicting

perspectives which prevents the undersigned to fulfil his duties as counsel
, the undersigned most respectfully requests that he be allowed by this
Honorable Court to withdraw his appearance in this case as counsel for
the accused.

PRAYER
WHEREFORE, premises considered, undersigned counsel respectfully
prays that he be allowed to withdraw his appearance in the above
captioned case and that future notices/ processes of this honourable Court
and pleadings/motions/correspondence from the prosecution in this case
be sent directly to the defendant or to any counsel who may subsequently
enter his appearance for the defendant and that undersigned counsel be
relieved of all his responsibilities to this case.

Furthermore, it is respectfully prayed that the current hearing set for this
case for August 7, 2018 for the presentation of witnesses by the defense be
reset to allow the accused ample time to find a replacement for his
representation in the above captioned case.

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

Caloocan City for San Juan City, Philippines

August 6, 2018

ATTY. MICHAEL MITO-ON J. ALI

               Counsel for the Accused
#5 London Tech St., University Hills
Subdivision, Barangay 80
 Caloocan City
IBP # 046009; July 4, 2018
PTR # CAL-9415533; 10 January 2018
Caloocan City
SC Roll of Attorney’s No. 63738
MCLE No. V 0025970
Contact No. : 02-505-3110

With my Conformity:

MOHAMMAD NOUR MACALANDONG

TABAO
Accused

Copy Furnish:

Assistant City Prosecutor _____________________

Office of the City Prosecutor
San Juan City