1

REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES

REGIONAL TRIAL COURT
4TH JUDICIAL REGION
BRANCH 69
KONOHA CITY
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES,
Plaintiff,
CRIM. CASE NO. 14344-2004-C
- for
VIOLATION OF SECTION 5 OF R.A. 9165

- versus SASUKE UCHIHA of

Brgy. Uchiha, Konoha City,
Accused.
x ------------------------------------------ x

OPPOSITION TO DEMURRER TO EVIDENCE

The People of the Philippines oppose the Demurrer and Motion to Dismiss of Accused
Sasuke Uchiha, an individual.

Accused and his counsels Demurrer seeks to dismiss the complaint by alleging the
irregularity in the performance of the official duties by the police officers which is crucial to the
chain of custody of the seized items. It stated that in the case of People vs. Kamad, GR No.
187736, the Court enumerated therein the different links that the prosecution must establish with
respect to the chain of custody in a buy-bust operation, namely:
First, the seizure and marking, if practicable, of the illegal drug recovered from the
accused by the apprehending officer;
Second, the turnover of the illegal drug seized by the apprehending officer to the
investigating officer;
Third, the turnover by the investigating officer of the illegal drug to the forensic chemist
for laboratory examination; and
Fourth, the turnover and submission of the marked illegal drug seized by the forensic
chemist to the court.

In the first link, he alleged that no documentation as to the physical inventory of the
confiscated items was presented, and if the same were, for a fact, already marked prior to the
inventory, Exhibit A, the Sinumpaang Salaysay, could have stated it.
Getting back to his claim of the chain of custody, the first link provides the seizure and
marking, if practicable, of the illegal drug recovered from the accused by the apprehending
officer. The defendants might have not carefully understood what they are claiming, for that does
not even require the necessity of putting markings because of the words if practicable.
Moreover, in People vs. Jolongon, neither law nor jurisprudence requires the presentation of any
of the money used in a buy-bust operation. Thus, we can conceive from it that even if no
markings was done on the money used, or it was not indicated in the Sinumpaang Salaysay, it
does not affect the sufficiency of the presented evidence.

In the second link which provides the turnover of the illegal drug seized by the
apprehending officer to the investigating officer, his defense is quite untenable, I do not see any
point, much as it is palpable, that such turnover is necessarily important in the chain, or even if it
was, it would be obstinate to turnover the seized items to himself, since he is the apprehending
officer, as well as the investigating officer, which, as the defendants imply, needs to be
consummated and absence of evidence therein results to insufficiency of evidence.

Proceeding to the third link, to wit: the turnover by the investigating officer of the illegal
drug to the forensic chemist for laboratory examination; the purpose of which is, as stated in his
Demurrer, it would include testimony about every link in the chain, witnesses would then
describe the precautions to ensure that there had been no change in the condition of the item and
no opportunity for someone not in the chain to have possession of the same. It is but clear in the
testimonies of the witnesses that after seizure of the items, it was endorsed and brought to the
Crime Laboratory along with PO2 Chouji who was with the police officers involved in the
operation and, as such, is credible and responsible enough of holding the items until it was
brought to the Crime Laboratory. The presented evidence, specifically, the Laboratory
Examination Request, Exhibit B, which was brought together with the seized items, has sub-

markings showing the stamp mark received, Exhibit B-2, and was signed by one Sarutobi/Police
Superintendent Chief of Police, Exhibit B-3, is evidence sufficient enough to prove the chain of
properly turning over the seized items to the laboratory.

Last in his alleged chain is the turnover and submission of the marked illegal drug seized
by the forensic chemist to the court. This is one thing I, myself, do not understand the reason for;
is the furnished Chemistry Report or the laboratory examination results insufficient to prove the
presence of illegal drugs in the seized items? For what is it that the turnover of the seized items
to the court be needed for, when in fact, the submitted examination report already declares the
presence of the same? Likewise, it is proved in Exhibit B-2, that what was received were the
seized items which were already marked prior to the endorsement to the laboratory, and which
could not be tampered any longer. If such link is of necessity, it would be raising doubts even as
to the procedures of the Police and the Crime Laboratory in such cases, which have been
practiced for a long time now, and upon which all cases regarding drugs will be affected.
What the defendants alleged is that the witnesses shall describe each and every steps
taken in the custody of the seized items to ensure that no opportunity for someone not in the
chain to have possession of the same, to the end that every person who got hold of the same must
be presented as witnesses in the trial in order to prove the perfect chain of custody of the item,
directing to the guilt of the accused.

Moreover, Sec. 21, Art. 2 of RA No. 9165, which actually provides for the 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, has been held by the court, even if not followed strictly, to be
acceptable. Ideally, the procedure on the chain of custody should be perfect and unbroken.
Accordingly, however, in People vs. Amansec, a testimony about a perfect chain is not always
the standard as it is almost always impossible to obtain an unbroken chain. So even if the
defendants Demurrer is to be given merit, the evidence presented by the prosecution is still, and
always will be, sufficient to prove the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt.

In view of the foregoing, it is respectfully requested that due to the untenable actions and
defenses of the accused and his counsel, and failure to destroy the prosecutions evidence
proving the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt, their Demurrer to Evidence and
Motion to Dismiss be denied.
September 29, 2012.
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES
JIRAAYA AND LALO