Republic of the Philippines

REGIONAL TRIAL COURT

7th Judicial Region
Branch 16
Cebu City

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES,

Plaintiff,
Criminal Case No. R-CEB-16-05496-CR
For: Violation of Sec. 11, Art. II of RA
9165

Criminal Case No. R-CEB-16-05497-CR

-versus- For: Violation of Sec. 5, Art. II of RA
9165

BRYAN HOMECILLO MAHILUM,

Accused.
X------------------------/

COMMENTS ON AND OBJECTIONS TO FORMAL OFFER OF EXHIBIT

ACCUSED, through the undersigned counsel, unto this Honorable Court, most
respectfully makes his comments on and interposes his objections to the following
exhibits formally offered by the prosecution on the merits, to wit:

Exhibit “A” - Affidavit of PO3 Jonas Catubig at PNP Station 5, Carbon, Cebu City

The above exhibit and the purposes for which it is offered are objected to for the
reason that the allegations therein are self-serving, mere conclusions of law and not
supported by sufficient evidence on record. The same are likewise objected to as the
statements reflected therein are contrary to the oral testimony of the prosecution witness
during the direct-examination, more so during cross-examination. The Affidavit does not
establish compliance with the chain of custody requirements; neither does it contain any
justification as to its non-compliance.

Exhibit “B” – Judicial Affidavit of police officers of the PNP Station 5

Just like the Affidavit of PO3 Catubig, Exhibit B and the purposes for which it is
offered are likewise objected to for the reason that the allegations therein are self-serving,
mere conclusions of law and not supported by sufficient evidence on record. The same
are likewise objected to as the statements reflected therein and the testimonies given by
the officers are inconsistent and contradictory to each other. Furthermore, the Judicial
Affidavit does not establish compliance with the chain of custody requirements; neither
does it contain any justification as to its non-compliance.

Exhibit “C” – Request for Laboratory Examination dated September 13, 2016

The above exhibit is admitted only as to its existence but not as to the purpose for
which it is offered since the same is self-serving and the allegedly seized items subject
thereto are at the onset fruits of poisonous tree. Each does not establish an unbroken
chain of custody of the said illegal items.

Exhibit “D” – Chemistry Report D-3807-16

Said Exhibit is admitted only as to its existence but objected to as to its purpose
because there is no showing that the items subject thereof were actually seized from
accused according to the requirements under Section 21 of RA 9165. Further, it is self-
serving and does not establish an unbroken chain of custody of the items involved in the
cases.

Exhibit “E” – Chain of Custody Form

The same is admitted only as to its existence but not as to the purpose for which it
is offered, as it is self-serving and does not establish an unbroken chain of custody of the
seized illegal items. It cannot be overemphasized that the chain of custody of the seized
items was already broken even at the outset since there is no showing that the insulating
witnesses were contacted even before the buy-bust team’s jump-off and that they had
personal knowledge as to the actual buy-bust operation and in what manner it had been
conducted.

Exhibit “F” – Certificate of Inventory

The foregoing exhibit is admitted only as to its existence but objected to as to the
purposes for which it is offered considering that there is no showing that the statutory
witnesses were at or near the place of apprehension during the alleged buy-bust operation;
they were contacted not before, not during but only after the operation. What they had to
do was simply affix their signatures, and they have no personal knowledge as to the alleged
buy-bust and the accused’s subsequent arrest. Apparently, no plausible explanation has
been put forward, which falls short as to the requirements clearly provided in Section 21
of RA 9165 and established jurisprudence. There is likewise no name as well as signature
of accused reflected therein; neither is there any indication therein that accused refused to
sign.
Exhibit “G” – Pre-Operation Report

Exhibit “H” – Coordination Form

Exhibit “I” – Authority to Operate

The above are objected to, as they are self-serving and do not establish an unbroken
chain of custody of the seized illegal items. As appearing in the same documents, both
were received by the PDEA not before, not during but only after the operation. Only
their existence is admitted. Besides, the chain has already been broken even at the outset.

Exhibit “J” – Spot Report and Exhibit “K” – excerpts of the Police blotter

They are admitted as to their existence only but objected to as to the purposes for
which they are offered, as they are self-serving and do not establish an unbroken chain of
custody of the seized illegal items. The chain has already been broken even at the outset
and it has not proved that the arrest of accused was a lawful one. Apparently, there is no
indication in the Spot Report’s face itself that the requirement with respect to the
insulating witnesses was complied with.

Exhibit “L” and submarkings – Photos taken during the inventory

All pictures are objected to because the same do not indicate compliance with
Section 21 of RA 9165. The same photographs likewise show that the witnesses’
participation was merely to sign the Certificate of Inventory and that the prosecution
failed to establish the insulating witnesses’ presence at or near the place of arrest.

Exhibit “M” – One (1) small heat-sealed transparent plastic sachet with attached
markings “BHM-BB” with signature containing white crystalline substance.

Exhibit “N” – is seven (7) heat-sealed transparent plastic sachets with attach
markings “BHM-1” through “BHM-7”, each with signature respectively marked
as B-1 through B-7 each containing white chrystaline substance.

The above are objected to because they are clear fruits of a poisonous tree, having
been seized contrary to the provisions of Section 21 of RA 9165 more particularly on the
failure of the prosecution to prove that the insulating witnesses were contacted ahead of
time and that they were at or near the place of apprehension at the time the alleged buy-
bust operation was conducted. Furthermore, there is no showing that the prosecution
succeeded in establishing an unbroken Chain of Custody of the said items.
Exhibit “O” – Buy Bust money

The same is admitted only as to its existence but objected to as to the purposes for
which it is offered since there is no pre-marking made thereon; what is reflected in the
extant documentary evidence is only the serial number of the bills. There is no showing
that the bills are the same ones allegedly used in the purported transaction. The bills used
as buy-bust money should have been pre-marked and said pre-marking should have been
reflected in the documentary evidence attached to the record. In this case, the team relied
on the serial numbers of the bills and belatedly indicated in the documents prepared
subsequent to the alleged buy-bust operation.

Exhibit “A” – Laboratory Exam Request

The above exhibit is admitted only as to its existence but not as to the purpose for
which it is offered since the same is self-serving and the allegedly seized items subject
thereto are at the onset fruits of poisonous tree. Each does not establish an unbroken
chain of custody of the said illegal items.

Exhibit “A-1” Stamp Receipt of PO2 Cleofe

This is objected to because the prosecution failed to establish an unbroken chain of

custody of the purported seized items even at the outset.

PRAYER

WHEREFORE, it is most respectfully prayed of this Honorable Court that all the
foregoing comments/objections be considered in resolving the case on the merits.

Other reliefs, just and equitable, are likewise prayed for.

RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED.

04 July 2022, Cebu City, Philippines

ATTY. MARIO P. TRINIDAD, JR.

Counsel for Accused
Roll No. 65158
PTR NO. 900669 / 01.12.22/ Cebu
IBP OR NO. 207053/ 05.04.22/ Cebu
MCLE Compliance No. VII-0010026 / 02.15.22
Email Address: jay_r022388@yahoo.com
 PEREZ and TAYURANG LAW OFFICES
Room 407, 4/F Krizia Building
Gorordo Avenue, Cebu City
Tel No. (032) 233-0644

REQUEST

THE CLERK OF COURT

RTC Branch 16, Cebu City

Madam:

Please submit the foregoing COMMENTS ON AND OBJECTIONS TO

FORMAL OFFER OF EXHIBIT for the consideration and approval of this
Honorable Court. Thank you.

MARIO P. TRINIDAD, JR.

Counsel for Accused

NOTICE

AURORA V. PEÑAFLOR
Prosecutor III – Cebu City
Office of the City Prosecutor
Department of Agriculture Compound
M. Velez Street, Capitol Site
Cebu City, Cebu

GREETINGS:

Kindly take notice that the foregoing Motion shall be submitted for the kind
consideration and resolution of the Honorable Court immediately sans further argument.

MARIO P. TRINIDAD, JR.

Copy furnished:

AURORA V. PEÑAFLOR
Prosecutor III – Cebu City
Email Add: penaflor.aurora@yah

EXPLANATION OF FILING AND SERVICE

The filing of the instant PLEADING to the Honorable Court and Service of Copy
of the same to the Office of the City Prosecutor were made thru email due to the recent
circumstance of Covid-19 pandemic and in compliance with SC Circular on electronic
filing. Thank you.

Mario P. Trinidad, Jr.