COMMON LAPSES IN THE FILING

AND PROSECUTION OF CRIMINAL COMPLAINTS

RA 9165
Chain of Custody:
1. In an anti-illegal drug operation, the seizing officer gave the sachet of Shabu
to his Team Leader; the Team Leader then gave it to the Evidence custodian,
who marked said sachet in the scene of crime; when they arrived at the Police
Station for further investigation of the case, the Evidence custodian gave the
same sachet to the Investigator of the case, who delivered the same to the
Crime Laboratory for examination.
Under the PNP Manual for Anti-Illegal Drug Operation, the handling of the
sachet must be limited only to the seizing officer and the Investigator of the
case.
Compliance with Section 21.
During the Inventory of the seized evidence, the Team failed to summon or
invite any elected public official or representative from the media and failed
to offer any justifiable reason why it failed to summon or invite these people
in order to witness the inventory.
In one Inventory of Seized Items, the one making the inventory failed to write
on the Inventory the names of the elected public Official and representative
from the media, who were allegedly present but refused to sign. In one case,
the Judge asked the names of the Barangay Officials and the representative
from the media who allegedly witnessed the Inventory-taking, but the Police
Officer could not recall the names. That will taint the credibility of your
testimony in court.
Sometimes, the Team also failed to take pictures or photograph the inventory
taking. There are also instances that in the pictures, only the items seized
from the accused were being photograph or it is only the accused and the
seized items that were depicted in the pictures without any picture of any of
the seizing/arresting officers.
In one case, the arresting officers were seen in the pictures covering their
faces with handkerchiefs while an elected public Official was signing the
inventory and the accused was seen handcuffed sitting beside him.
There were also instances that what were submitted to us were pictures of
sachets and other items which were not yet marked. The Police Officer is
prone to an extensive cross examination concerning the identification of the
items thru pictures because it was not yet marked in the pictures.

When going to an Anti-Illegal Operation, provide yourself with an evidence

container consisting of transparent cellophane or self-sealing cellophane,
masking tape, and pentel pen, as well as evidence box or body bag where you
could put the seized items.
The Miranda Doctrine.
Some Police Officers failed to recite this when asked by the Defense Counsel
or the Judge. Try to be particular to this and memorize it by heart.
Documentation.
In many Affidavit of Arrest or Apprehension, the Police Officers failed to
specify what particular sachet was seized from any of the respondents, more
so if there are several respondents arrested in the same incident and the same
place of operation. In one case dismissed by one of our prosecutors, the Police
Officers during the Inquest Proceedings could not specify the particular sachet
recovered from any of the seven (7) respondents.
Be reminded of the filing and delivery of the respondents at our office at the
first hour of the next working day when such respondent or respondents were
apprehended during holidays or in the afternoon or evening of Friday or
Saturdays or Sundays. In the case of People vs. Jude Gabriel B. Raagas, he
was delivered to our office at 11:00 oclock in the morning of MONDAY.
Also observed in some affidavit is that despite the number of the arrested
respondents, only one (1) Police Officer executed an affidavit of
apprehension.
Also in some affidavit of Apprehension, the Police Officers failed to specify
in what portion of the house where the illegal drugs or drug paraphernalia
where seized or recovered.
In some Inventory Receipt, the names of the elected public official and
representative from the media is hardly read. However, when you read the
affidavit of apprehension for reference, you could not also find the names of
these people because they were not mentioned in the affidavit.
In filing a case for Violation of Section 6 and Section 7, be sure that there is
an evidence that the respondent utilize3d his house or structure as a DRUG
DEN. Why? Because without any prior evidence the charge will be
dismissed.
In the case of THE UNITED STATES vs. CHUA LUI, the Supreme Court
says:
There is no evidence in the record showing or tending to show that
the house occupied by the accused was an "opium joint" or that it had been

built or constructed for that purpose, or that it had been changed and
modified by the appellant Chua Lui so as to make it an "opium den," or
that it had any of the qualities, whatever they may be, of such a resort, or
that he intended to use it for any illicit purpose. There is no evidence in the
record showing or tending to show that Chua Lui was acquainted with any
gang of opium smugglers or persons connected therewith or with such
persons, or that he had ever been convicted of any violation of the Opium
Law. Even though all these things were true, it does not necessarily follow
that he is guilty of the crime charged. Persons may not be convicted on
general principles, but only on evidence which establishes the precise
charge lodged against them.

Also in the case of People vs. Ladjaalam, 395 Phil. 1, the Supreme
Court also rationalizes in this manner:
A drug den is a lair or hideaway where prohibited or regulated
drugs are used in any form or are found. Its existence may be proved not
only by direct evidence but may also be established by proof of the facts
and circumstances, including evidence of the general reputation of the
house, or its general reputation among police officers.

So what you do is to secure an affidavit from any Barangay Official in the

community that the house of the respondent was utilized as a Drug Den and it is
well-known to the community.
Testifying in Court.
As Police Officers try to put in mind that whenever you go to an enemy line,
be sure that you are fully armed for combat.
Review your Affidavit and the documents or items mentioned in said
affidavit. Be particular with the date, time, place, and complete name of the
respondents as well as the names of any elected public official and
representative from the media who witnessed the inventory.
In testifying before the court, bear in mind that you are creating a picture of
what happened during the anti-illegal operation. When you are asked what
else happened or what else did you do for that anti-illegal drug operation
just put in mind the following
a. Police Blotter
b. Spot Report
c. PDEA coordination
d. Inventory-Taking of the seized items
e. Marking of evidence
f. Photographing during the Inventory-taking
g. Request for laboratory Examination
h. Request for Drug Test
i. etc.

RA 10591.
The most failure made by the apprehending officers concerning the
documentation in Illegal Possession of Firearm is the making a REQUEST
before the Firearm and Explosive Unit or FESAGGSS whether or not the
respondent is a licensed holder of any firearm. This is an element of the crime
and failure to present any CERTIFICATION that the respondent is not a
license holder of any firearm will result to his acquittal. What thed Police
Officers usually do is to make a Request at the Crime laboratory for the
Forensic Examination of the seize3d Firearm. Although there is a PNP
National Memorandum or Circular concerning the examination of Firearm
seized in a certain crime, this is not an ELEMENT of Illegal Possession of
Firearm. Be strictly reminded of this.
RAPE CASES.
In some Rape cases filed in our office, theWomens Desk Officer failed to
specify the age of a minor victim and to secure the Birth Certificate of a mior
victim.
They also failed to particularly specify in the affidavit the place of the
commission of the crime, the date and the time, and the Particular acts
committed by the respondent. They just put it in the affidavit that the victim was
RAPED. You see, the particular acts performed by the respondent must be
specified in the affidavit because the word RAPE is a conclusion of law.
There are two ways of committing Rape under Article266-A and Article
266-B of the RPC.
FIRST, is the conventional type of Rape committed by a man against a
woman;
SECOND, is the one we referred to as RAPE BY SEXUAL ASSAULT.
It is committed by ANY PERSON by inserting his penis into another persons
MOUTH or ANAL ORIFICE, or any INSTRUMENT or OBJECT, into the
GENITAL or ANAL ORIFICE of another person.
Under this type of RAPE, it may be committed by a man against a
woman; a man against a man; and a woman against a woman. So in the Affidavit
of the Complainant, it is necessary to state the particular acts committed by the
respondent not just stating in the affidavit that the victim was raped by the
respondent.
In one case, the complainant alleged that she was raped 32 times in
January, in February, in the month of March, April, so on and so forth. The
Desk Officer must make an account of the particular acts committed by the

respondent in a certain Place and on a certain date and on a certain time. Do not
just make allegations that the victim was raped