Republic of the Philippines

Department of Justice
OFFICE OF THE CITY PROSECUTOR

PCPL ARCHIE LOURD ARCENO NPS DOCKET No. IX-INV-21H-

SUGANDO, ET AL., ___
Complainant,
-for-
-versus-
VIOLATION OF SECTION 5
____ AND 11, R.A No. (165
Respondent.
x-----------------------------------x

INQUEST RESOLUTION

This resolves the complaint forwarded by Zamboanga City Police

Office, Station 9, Ayala, this City, against Respondent A___for Violation of
Section 5 and 11, Article II of R.A. No. 9165.

It appears from the record that Respondent was lawfully arrested

without a warrant under Section 5, Rule 113 of the Rules on Criminal
Procedure and is being detained under Waiver of the provisions of Article
125 of the Revised Penal Code. On August 17, 2021, Respondent signed
a waiver of the provisions of Article 125 of the Revised Penal Code and
availed of the preliminary investigation in accordance with the Rules.
However, the period lapsed without him submitting his counter-affidavit.
Hence, this case shall be resolved based on the evidence on record.

The records show that a buy-bust operation was conducted against

Respondent Aldrin Alvarez y Guzman, at Zone 1, Barangay Ayala,
Zamboanga City, where he was eventually arrested after selling one (1)
sachet of alleged “shabu” to PCPL Archie Lourd Arceno Suganob who
acted as the poseur buyer. During the operation, PCPL Al-Reza Beralde
Abing, the arresting officer, seized five (5) pieces of heat sealed
transparent plastic sachets containing white crystalline substance
believed to be “shabu” and two (2) pieces of P100.00 bills registered
marked money, from the possession of Respondent. The item subject of
the buy bust and five (5) pieces of heat sealed transparent plastic sachets
containing white crystalline substance, when subjected to laboratory
examination gave positive result to the test for the presence of
Methamphetamine Hydrochloride (Shabu), a dangerous drug per
Chemistry Report Number D-536-2021.

In the warrantless arrest made by the police officers, the latter

explained the reason for their non-compliance to A.M. No. 21-06-08-SC
(Rules on the Use of Body-Worn Cameras in the Execution of Warrants).
They explained that the use of a body-worn camera would prejudice the
buy-bust operation since the camera is bulky and that their team was
not ready to use body worn camera or alternative recording due to lack of
training. This allegation is supported by a Notice of Conference to
discuss issues and concerns regarding the use of body worn camera
during Anti-Illegal Drug Operation set on August 25, 2021, which was
seven (7) days after the date of the buy-bust operation conducted against
Respondent. In light of the novelty of the procedure and their limited
resources, and as it appears that their affidavits are consistent with the
supporting evidence on record, there is no reason to deviate from the
presumption of regularity of the police officers in the performance of their
duty. As it provides in Section 5, Rule 2, failure to observe the
requirement of using body-worn cameras or alternative recording devices
shall not render the arrest unlawful or render the evidence obtained
inadmissible. Facts surrounding the arrest may be proved by the
testimonies of the arresting officers, the person arrested, and the
witnesses to the arrest.

After careful evaluation of the record of these cases and the

evidence submitted, it appears that there is sufficient evidence showing
that Respondent has committed the crime he is accused of and is
probably guilty thereto.

WHEREFORE, premises considered, it is respectfully

recommended that upon approval of this Resolution the attached
Information for VIOLATION OF SECTIONS 5 and 11, ARTICLE II OF
REPUBLIC ACT NO. 9165 OTHERWISE KNOWN AS “THE
COMPREHENSIVE DANGEROUS DRUGS ACT OF 2002” against
Respondent ___, be prepared and filed before the Regional trial Court,
this City. Bail as stated in each Information is recommended.

Zamboanga City, Philippines, September 9, 2021.

 After careful evaluation of the record of these cases and the
evidence submitted, it appears fthat there is sufficient evidence showing
that respondent have committed the crime he is accused of ans is
probably guilty thereof.