Republic of the Philippines Quezon City Municipal Trial Court National Capital Region Branch 43 Quezon

City PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES Plaintiff, CRIMINAL CASE NO. Q-08-342847 For: Violation of Sections 12
and 15, RA No. 9165 - versus – GABBY J. VILLA, KEVIN T. ORQUIA, AND ARWIN B. VILLA, Accused. X--------
--------------------------------X MEMORANDUM OF AUTHORITY (FOR PLAINTIFF) Plaintiff, by the undersigned
counsel, respectfully states that: EVIDENCEFORTHEPROSECUTION On 19 May 2018, a Philippine Drug
Enforcement Agency (PDEA) team meeting for the implementation of a search warrant covering a
building at No. B 894 F. Mufioz Street, Tramo Street, Barangay 43, Zone 6, Pasay City was held. The
Special Enforcement Group Team Leader of the Metro Manila Regional Office - Philippine Drug
Enforcement Agency, IO2 Narciso P. Salgado (I02 Salgado), designated IO2 Daniel D. Viscaya (IO2
Viscaya) as the seizing officer, and IOI Edwin J. San Miguel and IOI Jayson A. Albano as the arresting
officers. The team prepared the pre-operations report form, coordination form, authority to operate,
and inventory of seized property/items form. The PDEA team coordinated with a team from the
Philippine National Police - Southern Police District in implementing the search warrant. They arrived at
the subject building at around 4:00 p.m., knocked on the door, and announced that they had a search
warrant. The occupants of which tried to escaped from the enforcers. 2 of 9 Three (3) persons, identified
in their as Gabby J. Villa (Gabby), Kevin T. Orquia (Kevin), and Arwin B. Villa (Arwin), were found inside
the subject building. I02 Viscaya read to them the contents of the search warrant. Thereafter, Barangay
Kagawad Oneil H. Panganiban, Assistant City Prosecutor of Pasay City Angelita M. Sigasig, and DZAR
Sunshine Radio Reporter Berlin M. Ariola arrived, and the search was conducted in their presence.
During the search, the team recovered, among others, transparent plastic sachets, aluminium foils,
containers of white crystalline substance and white powdery residue, disposable lighters, improvised
plastic scoops, a total amount of ₱1,500.00 in assorted bills, and ₱375.00 in coins. Gabby, Kevin, and
Arwin were arrested and apprised of their constitutional rights. The confiscated items were also
inventoried, photographed, and marked in their presence, as well as in the presence of the Barangay
officials and the Department of Justice and media representatives. The arrested suspects were brought
to the PDEA Headquarters for investigation and mandatory drug testing, together with the seized
objects, one of which was identified as Methamphetamine Hydrochloride or “shabu”. Gabby, Kevin, and
Arwin tested positive for shabu in the confirmatory test. The prosecution submitted, among others, the
following in its formal offer of evidence: 1. Joint Affidavit of the Arresting Officers; 2. Inventory of the
Seized Property/Items and Receipt of property seized; 3. Pictures of the incident; 4. Request for
Laboratory Examination; 5. Request for Drug Test dated 19 May 2018; 6. Chemistry Report No. PDEA-
DTO 18-135 to 137; 7. Strips of aluminum foils; 8. Medicine box with white residue; 9. Heat-sealed
transparent plastic sachets containing white crystalline substance; 10. Improvised white plastic scoops;
11. Metal rectangular cash box containing traces of white crystalline substance; 12. Improvised plastic
pipes; 13. Plastic sachets; 14. Plastic tray containing traces of white crystalline substance; and 15. Silver
card boards. 3 of 9 These facts as shown in this case prove that there is reasonable doubt that the
accused violated Sections 12 and 15, Article II, Republic Act No. 9165. ISSUES Given the foregoing facts
and circumstances, the issue is whether or not the defendant can be charged of violating Sections 12
and 15, Article II, Republic Act No. 9165. ARGUMENTS/DISCUSSIONS Pertinent provisions of Section 12,
Article II, Republic Act No. 9165, otherwise known as the Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002,
reads as follow: “Section 12. Possession of Equipment, Instrument, Apparatus and Other Paraphernalia
for Dangerous Drugs. - The penalty of imprisonment ranging from six (6) months and one (1) day to four
(4) years and a fine ranging from Ten thousand pesos (P10,000.00) to Fifty thousand pesos (P50,000.00)
shall be imposed upon any person, who, unless authorized by law, shall possess or have under his/her
control any equipment, instrument, apparatus and other paraphernalia fit or intended for smoking,
consuming, administering, injecting, ingesting, or introducing any dangerous drug into the body:
Provided, That in the case of medical practitioners and various professionals who are required to carry
such equipment, instrument, apparatus and other paraphernalia in the practice of their profession, the
Board shall prescribe the necessary implementing guidelines thereof. The possession of such equipment,
instrument, apparatus and other paraphernalia fit or intended for any of the purposes enumerated in
the preceding paragraph shall be prima facie evidence that the possessor has smoked, consumed,
administered to himself/herself, injected, ingested or used a dangerous drug and shall be presumed to
have violated Section 15 of this Act.” In the case of Saraum v. People1 , the Supreme Court enumerated
the elements of illegal possession of equipment, instrument, apparatus and other paraphernalia for
dangerous drugs under Section 12, Article II, R.A. No. 9165, to wit: 1 Amado I. Saraum v. People of the
Philippines, G.R. No. 205471, 25 January 2016 4 of 9 (1) possession or control by the accused of any
equipment, apparatus or other paraphernalia fit or intended for smoking, consuming, administering,
injecting, ingesting, or introducing any dangerous drug into the body; and (2) such possession is not
authorized by law. The prosecution has convincingly established that appellants were in possession of
drug paraphernalia, particularly strips of aluminum foils, medicine box with white residue, Heat-sealed
transparent plastic sachets containing white crystalline substance, improvised white plastic scoops,
metal rectangular cash box containing traces of white crystalline substance, improvised plastic pipes,
plastic sachets, plastic tray containing traces of white crystalline substance, and silver card boards, all of
which were offered and admitted in evidence. Equally significant in establishing all the elements of
violations of RA 9165 is proving that there was no hiatus in the chain of custody of the dangerous drugs
and paraphernalia. It would be useless to still proceed to determine the existence of the elements of the
crime if the corpus delicti had not been proven beyond moral certainty. Irrefragably, the prosecution
cannot prove its case for violation of the provisions of R.A. No. 9165 when the seized items could not be
accounted for or when there were significant breaks in their chain of custody that would cast doubt as
to whether those items presented in court were actually those that were seized. An enlightened
precedent provides for the meaning of chain of custody, viz: Chain of custody is defined as "the duly
recorded authorized movements and custody of seized drugs or controlled chemicals or plant sources of
dangerous drugs or laboratory equipment of each stage, from the time of seizure/confiscation to receipt
in the forensic laboratory to safekeeping to presentation in court for destruction." Such record of
movements and custody of seized item shall include the identity and signature of the person who held
temporary custody of the seized item, the date and time when such transfer of custody were made in
the course of safekeeping and use in court as evidence, and the final disposition.2 Considering that the
arrest was legal, the search and seizure that resulted from it were likewise lawful. The various drug
paraphernalia that the police officers found and seized from accused are, therefore, admissible in
evidence for having proceeded from a valid search and seizure. The confiscated drug paraphernalia are
the very corpus delicti of the crime charged. 2 People ofthePhilippines
v.MardanAmeril,G.R.No.203293,14November2016 5 of 9 On the other hand, pertinent provisions of
Section 15, Article II, Republic Act No. 9165 reads as follow: “Section 15. Use of Dangerous Drugs. – A
person apprehended or arrested, who is found to be positive for use of any dangerous drug, after a
confirmatory test, shall be imposed a penalty of a minimum of six (6) months rehabilitation in a
government center for the first offense, subject to the provisions of Article VIII of this Act. If
apprehended using any dangerous drug for the second time, he/she shall suffer the penalty of
imprisonment ranging from six (6) years and one (1) day to twelve (12) years and a fine ranging from
Fifty thousand pesos (P50,000.00) to Two hundred thousand pesos (P200,000.00): Provided, That this
Section shall not be applicable where the person tested is also found to have in his/her possession such
quantity of any dangerous drug provided for under Section 11 of this Act, in which case the provisions
stated therein shall apply.” It can be gleamed for the aforementioned provision that the established
essential elements of Section 15 are that: (1) the accused was arrested; (2) the accused was subjected to
drug test; and (3) the confirmatory test shows that he used a dangerous drug. The ruling of the Supreme
Court in the case of Dela Cruz v. People3 is helpful as to the coverage of the phrase "a person
apprehended or arrested," to wit: "[a] person apprehended or arrested" cannot literally mean any
person apprehended or arrested for any crime. The phrase must be read in context and understood in
consonance with R.A. 9165. Section 15 comprehends persons arrested or apprehended for unlawful acts
listed under Article II of the law. Hence, a drug test can be made upon persons who are apprehended or
arrested for, among others, the "importation", "sale, trading, administration, dispensation, delivery,
distribution and transportation", "manufacture" and "possession" of dangerous drugs and/or controlled
precursors and essential chemicals; possession thereof "during parties, social gatherings or meetings";
being "employees and visitors of a den, dive or resort"; "maintenance of a den, dive or resort"; "illegal 3
JaimeD.DelaCruz vs.People ofthePhilippines,G.R.No.200748, 23July2014 6 of 9 chemical diversion of
controlled precursors and essential chemicals"; "manufacture or delivery" or "possession" of equipment,
instrument, apparatus, and other paraphernalia for dangerous drugs and/or controlled precursors and
essential chemicals; possession of dangerous drugs "during parties, social gatherings or meetings";
"unnecessary" or "unlawful" prescription thereof; "cultivation or culture of plants classified as
dangerous drugs or are sources thereof; and "maintenance and keeping of original records of
transactions on dangerous drugs and/or controlled precursors and essential chemicals." To make the
provision applicable to all persons arrested or apprehended for any crime not listed under Article II is
tantamount to unduly expanding its meaning. A charge for violation of Section 15 of R.A. 9165 is seen as
expressive of the intent of the law to rehabilitate persons apprehended or arrested for the unlawful acts
enumerated above instead of charging and convicting them of other crimes with heavier penalties. It is
the elementary rule of statutory construction that the express mention of one person, thing, act, or
consequence excludes all others. This rule is expressed in the familiar maxim expressio unius est exclusio
alterius. Where a statute, by its terms, is expressly limited to certain matters, it may not, by
interpretation or construction, be extended to others. The rule proceeds from the premise that the
legislature would not have made specified enumerations in a statute had the intention been not to
restrict its meaning and to confine its terms to those expressly mentioned.4 Applying the maxim
expressio unius est exclusio alterius, it is clear from the statute that Section 15 does not apply when a
person charged with violation of Section 15, Article II, RA 9165 on use of dangerous drugs, is also found
to have possession of such quantity of drugs provided under Section 11 of the same law. This means
that appellant may not be charged separately of violation of Section 11 on illegal possession of
dangerous drugs and of Section 15 on use of dangerous drug since it is clear from the above that the
provisions of Section 11 shall apply. Illegal possession of dangerous drugs absorbs the use of dangerous
drugs. However, this will not apply when the accused was caught in the act of possessing drug
paraphernalia. In the case at bench, granting that the arrest was legal, the evidence obtained
admissible, and the chain of custody intact, the proper that charges under Section 15, R.A. No. 9165 or
for use of dangerous drugs and Section 12 for Possession of Equipment, Instrument, Apparatus and
Other Paraphernalia for Dangerous Drugs. In fact, 4 MartinCentenovs.Hon.VictoriaVillalon-
Pornillos,G.R.No.113092, 01September1994 7 of 9 under the latter section, the possession of such
equipment, apparatus or other paraphernalia is prima facie evidence that the possessor has used a
dangerous drug and shall be presumed to have violated Section 15. Based on the information identified
above, your affiant submits that there is probable cause to believe that the accused possessed
dangerous drugs paraphernalia and used dangerous drugs, in violation of Sections 12 and 15, Article II,
Republic Act No. 9165, otherwise known as the Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002. PRAYER WHEREFORE,
PREMISES CONSIDERED, it is respectfully prayed of this Honorable Court that judgment be rendered in
favor of plaintiff and against the accused by charging the same with the crime of violation of Sections 12
and 15, Article II, Republic Act No. 9165. Other just and equitable remedies under the circumstances are
likewise prayed for. Quezon City, Philippines, 28 August 2018. ATTY. HELENA A. COSTELO Counsel for
Plaintiff Quezon City IBP No: 186513 PTR No: 18-254 Roll No: 234478 MCLE No: 8438 Copy furnished:
The Honorable City Prosecutor (personally served) QuezonCityProsecutor’sOffice QuezonCity Received
byJamilM.Silverio on 30August 2018 8 of 9 The Clerk of Court (personally served) MTCBranch 43
QuezonCity Received byIanB.Remigioon 30August2018 Atty.EmilioS.Cruz CounselforAccused Unit A-1,
6th Floor, Cyberone Building Eastwood City, Bagumbayan, Quezon City Registry Receipt No. 4563, dated
30 August 2018 EXPLANATION Copy of this Memorandum is personally served to the Quezon City
Prosecutor’s Office, MTC Branch 43 and Counsel for the Respondent on Quezon City. ATTY. HELENA A.
COSTELO Counsel for Plaintiff 9 of 9 Republic ofthePhilippines) QuezonCity...........)SS.
AFFIDAVITOFSERVICE/MAILING I, Nilo D. Acuna of legal age, Filipino, single, and a resident of Fairview,
Quezon City, Philippines, after being swornin accordancewithlaw, do herebydepose and state:THAT– 1. I
am at present the clerk/messenger of the Bodota – Dulawan and Associates Law Office located at 2rd
Floor, Fairview Central Mall, Quirino Avenue, corner Regalado Street, Quezon City, 1118. On 30 August
2018, I served through personal service and/or registered mail copies ofthisMemorandumto: The
Honorable City Prosecutor (personally served) QuezonCityProsecutor’sOffice QuezonCity The Clerk of
Court (personally served) MTCBranch 43 QuezonCity Atty.EmilS.Cruz CounselforAccused Unit A-1, 6th
Floor, Cyberone Building Eastwood City, Bagumbayan, Quezon City 2. Proof of service and registry
receipt of the foregoing mailing can be clearlyseen on page 7 and 8 ofthepleading. IN WITNESS
WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand this 31 day of August 2018, at Quezon City, Philippines. Nilo D.
Acuna Affiant SSSIDNo. 0625683094 SUBSCRIBEDANDSWORNtobeforeme this31 dayofAugust 2018
atQuezonCity,Philippines.Affiant exhibitedhisSSSIDNo. 0625683094 Doc.No.__ PageNo. __ BookNo.__
Seriesof 2018