Magnaye, Isaiah Athriene R.

Trial Technique

Procedural and substantive lapses committed by the arresting team

At first look in the joint affidavit of apprehension/complaint, the statement of the arresting
officers seems clean. However, if we look closely, paragraph 1 of the joint affidavit states that the
arresting officers were only on surveillance in their area of responsibility as instructed by their station
commander against all forms of illegal drug activities. By that statement we may follow the train of
thought that the means of arresting the suspects will be made by warrantless arrests. Warrantless
arrests are made when there are persons who are in flagrante delicto, engaged in hot pursuit, and
fugitives from justice. The arrested persons are neither engaged in hot pursuit nor fugitives from justice,
hence we may presume that they were arrested on the ground of in flagrante delicto, and not by buy-
bust operation. Paragraph 3 of the joint affidavit provided the observation made by the arresting officers
in obtaining their probable cause for arresting the suspects. Probable cause has been defined as the
existence of such facts and circumstances as would excite the belief in a reasonable mind, acting on the
facts within the knowledge of the prosecutor, that the person charged was guilty of the crime for which
he was prosecuted. The arresting officers stated that they saw small transparent plastic sachets being
passed to each other. This instance would be a possible defense for lack of probable cause as the
arrested persons were only regular civilians who were conversing in public where the arresting officers
made their act, and there was no overt act that they were dealing with drugs. There isn’t even a
confidential informant who stated that the arrested persons were persons directly involved in drug
dealing, hence there would be no probable cause, nor direct interest to show that such arrested persons
were involved in illegal drug activities. The joint affidavit of the arresting officers may be foolproof if not
read with caution. There was no buy-bust operation conducted hence there was no witnesses to show
that the small transparent plastic sachets were actually from the arrested persons and contained white
crystalline substances which is suspected to be shabu.

With regard the Procedural lapses made by the arresting team, section 21, Article II of the RA
9165 as amended by RA 10640 states that:
"SEC. 21. Custody and Disposition of Confiscated, Seized, and/or Surrendered Dangerous Drugs, Plant
Sources of Dangerous Drugs, Controlled Precursors and Essential Chemicals, Instruments/Paraphernalia
and/or Laboratory Equipment. –  The PDEA shall take charge and have custody of all dangerous drugs, plant
sources of dangerous drugs, controlled precursors and essential chemicals, as well as
instruments/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 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 person/s 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 officer/team, shall not render void
and invalid such seizures and custody over said items."

At the time of the said arrest, there was no media representative nor elected official present to clearly
show that the small transparent plastic sachets contain white crystalline substance which was believed
to be shabu was obtained directly from the arrested persons. Such instance would violate the integrity
and evidentiary value of the seized items as such items may be planted, switched or contaminated by
the arresting officers to the arrested persons. Paragraph 11 of the Joint affidavit stated that the arresting
officers complied with the required witnesses as required by RA 10640. Such witnesses were obtained
after the arrest was made, and such witnesses would not have any idea whether or not the suspected
shabu were clearly obtained from the arrested persons. Unlike in buy-bust operations, the required
witnesses are with the arresting officers, and poseur-buyer as they photograph the seized items in the
presence of the persons from whom such items were confiscated or seized. Such scenario made by the
arresting officers without the witnesses would violate the procedural requirement and break the chain
of custody which is required by RA 9165 as amended by RA 10640. In the case of People v. Maganon, it
provided that the purpose of the law in requiring the presence of certain witnesses, at the time of the
seizure and inventory of the seized items, is to "insulate the seizure from any taint of illegitimacy or
irregularity.” In another case People v. Mendoza, the Court ruled that "without the insulating presence
of the representative from the media or the Department of Justice, or any elected public official during
the seizure and marking of the shabu, the evils of switching, 'planting' or contamination of the evidence
that had tainted the buy-busts conducted under the regime of RA 6425 (Dangerous Drugs Act of 1972)
might again rear their ugly heads as to negate the integrity and credibility of the seizure and confiscation
of the sachets of shabu that were evidence herein of the corpus delicti, and thus adversely affect the
trustworthiness of the incrimination of the accused. Indeed, the insulating presence of such witnesses
would preserve an unbroken chain of custody."

Tagalog Criminal Information (Bukid Case)

Ang nag-akdang Piskal ay inaakusahan si Edwin Bukid y Lopez at Oliver Bukid y Lopez ng krimen
ng pag patay, na ipinaliwanag at nag paparusa mula sa Artikulo 258 ng Revised Penal Code na nabago ng
Republic Act No. 7659, kaakibat ng Presidential Decree No. 1866, at muling binago ng RA 10591, ang
mga sumusunod ang mga pangyayari:

Noong ika-dalawamput dalawang araw ng Abril taong 2017, alas syete quarenta ng gabi, sa
Barangay Poblacion, Zone 6 ng Bayan ng Taal, probinsya ng Batangas sa Pilipinas, at kaloob ng
nasasakupan at Hurisdiksyon ng korteng ito, ay inaakusahan si Edwin Bukid y Lopez, na armado ng
unrehistradong armas, at nagplano kasama ang akusadong si Oliver Bukid y Lopez, na nagmaneho ng
motor upang makatakas, ay nag tulungan na may planong pagpatay at pag tataksil ng walang dahilan, ay
biglang inatake ng walang pasabi at binaril ng walang awtoridad sa mga parte ng katawan, ang isang
Rodolfo Valencia Sr. y Robelo, na nagging sanhi ng pagkamatay niya.