Filing of a petition for bail is standard for defense lawyers

The defense lawyers filed the petition for bail claiming that the evidence of guilt is weak.
For the millions of Filipinos who are following the developments of this case on television
and the Internet, this claim seems highly incredible since the evidence of guilt appears to
be stronger than the steel on a back hoe. But the filing of a petition for bail is a standard
tactic of defense lawyers. Let me explain.

This kind of petition is allowed under the Rules on Criminal Procedure and is in keeping
with the Constitutional presumption of innocence. Once such a petition has been filed, the
prosecution is required to prove that indeed evidence of guilt is strong. After the hearings, the
judge can deny or grant the petition for bail.

What happens if the petition for bail is granted?

If you remember the kidnapping case involving actor/congressman Dennis Roldan, the judge ruled
that the evidence of guilt was weak. He was allowed to post bail.

If the petition for bail is granted, the case will then proceed as in the normal procedure:

 The prosecution will present evidence to prove the guilt of the accused. All the
testimonies and evidences presented during the hearings of the petition for bail will become
part of the hearing on the main issues. The witnesses who testified during the hearings for the
petition for bail will not be required to appear and testify again during the hearings on the
main issues of the case.However, since the petition for bail has been granted, the
prosecution is put on notice that it should review its case and strengthen its
evidence.

 After the prosecution has presented its evidence, the accused may then present
evidence of his innocence. (Before presenting his evidence, he can with the leave or
consent of the court, submit what is called a demurrer to evidence. This is essentially a motion
to dismiss the case. If the court grants the demurrer, the case is dismissed and the accused is
set free. If the court denies the demurrer, then the accused has to present his evidence.)

For the accused and his lawyers therefore, filing a petition for bail is advantageous for at
least two reasons:

 If the petition is granted, he can be released from custody and enjoy his liberty while the case
is going on; and
  He can know whether in the mind of the judge the evidence of his guilt is strong or not. If the
judge denies his petition, he has the time to strengthen his defense. He may even consider a
plea bargain.

Let’s discuss some practical matters about bail:

[1] “Bail” is the security given for the release of a person in custody of the law, furnished by him or a
bondsman, to guarantee his appearance before any court as required under the conditions hereinafter
specified.

[2] The information filed by the fiscal contains at the lower portion a notation on the bail
recommended. The bail may be given in the form of corporate surety, property bond, cash deposit, or
recognizance. The legal term is “to post bail” but “to pay the bail” is the layman’s expression.

No bail necessary for cases under the Rules on Summary Procedure (for example, BP 22)

For cases falling under the Rules on Summary Procedure, the court does not issue a warrant of arrest.
Thus the posting of bail is not necessary (even if the information states a recommended bail). For
example, persons accused of violation of BP 22 (bouncing checks) do not have to post bail. However,
the court may issue a warrant of arrest and require the posting of bail if the accused fails to
appear during the hearings.

Release on recognizance

[3] “ROR” (Release on recognizance) means that the accused will not post the bail in money or
security; instead, the accused will be released to the custody of a government official like barangay
officials or previously, in the case of minors, of parents. The person to whom custody is entrusted will
guarantee that the accused will be present during the hearings.

Motion to reduce bail

[4] Sometimes, the accused and/or his family cannot afford to post the recommended bail. The usual
procedure is to file what is called “Motion to reduce bail”. For example, if the recommended bail is
sixty thousand pesos, the accused may ask the court to reduce the bail to around twenty five
thousand pesos. The court may grant the motion to reduce bail but then it requires that the bail be
paid in cash.

Seeking the help of bail bondsman or “pyansador”

[5] If you know someone who has been arrested but who cannot afford to pay the bail, you can ask
the clerks and security guards at fiscal’s offices and/or the Hall of Justice as to who the bail bondsmen
(“pyansador”) are. These are men and women who make a living out of helping persons accused of a
crime to avail of the services of surety companies. These companies will pay the recommended bail
and the accused has to pay only the premium. The “pyansador” will work on all the papers.
(Sometimes, the court staff or the police officers serving the warrant have contacts with the
“psyansador”. Once the accused has been arrested, the court staff or the police officers will tell him
that they can help work on their release. Needless to say, these practices of court staff and police
officers are against Civil Service rules.)

Pictures needed

[6] The accused, in working on his bail, has to provide pictures of himself (front, left and right
profiles) which will be attached to the documents. There are photographers who hang around fiscal’s
offices and Halls of Justice, waiting for clients. The “pyansador” also has contacts with photographers.

If the accused has not yet been arrested and is working on the posting of his bail, he can go to a
photo studio and ask that his pictures be taken. If he tells the photo studio that he needs the pictures
for posting bail, the studio already knows what kind of pictures to take.

Posting bail to avoid being arrested; how to prevent being harassed

[7] To avoid being arrested on the basis of a warrant of arrest, the accused posts the recommended
bail through his lawyer or relatives. In the meantime, the accused hides or makes himself scarce.
Once the bail has been posted, the accused should always bring with him proof of payment of bail.
This way, he can avoid being harassed by the police. For the same reason, if the accused has been
arrested and then posts bail, he should carry with him a copy of the release order.

What to do if someone borrows money from you to post the bail

[8] If an accused approaches you for help in paying his bail and you want to make sure that the
money is returned to you eventually, ask that your name be indicated in the official receipt as the
payor of the bail.

Bail is cancelled if accused is absent during the hearings; motion to lift the warrant of
arrest and to reinstate bail

[9] If the accused who has posted bail fails to appear at a hearing, then the court may order that his
bail be forfeited. The court also issues what is called a “bench warrant” for the arrest of the accused.
If the accused has a valid reason for his absence (like sickness or he was not informed of the hearing),
he may file a “motion to lift the warrant of arrest and to reinstate bail”.

But if the accused does not have any valid reason for being absent during the hearings, he will be
forced to post bail again.

Posted below are the complete provisions of “The Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure” on
bail.

Rule 114 – Bail

Section 1. Bail defined. – Bail is the security given for the release of a person in custody of the law,
furnished by him or a bondsman, to guarantee his appearance before any court as required under the
conditions hereinafter specified. Bail may be given in the form of corporate surety, property bond,
cash deposit, or recognizance.

Sec. 2. Conditions of the bail; requirements. – All kinds of bail are subject to the following
conditions:
(a) The undertaking shall be effective upon approval, and unless cancelled, shall remain in force at all
stages of the case until promulgation of the judgment of the Regional Trial Court, irrespective of
whether the case was originally filed in or appealed to it;

(b) The accused shall appear before the proper court whenever required by the court of these Rules;

(c) The failure of the accused to appear at the trial without justification and despite due notice shall be
deemed a waiver of his right to be present thereat. In such case, the trial may proceed in absentia;
and

(d) The bondsman shall surrender the accused to the court for execution of the final judgment.
The original papers shall state the full name and address of the accused, the amount of the
undertaking and the conditions required by this section. Photographs (passport size) taken within the
last six (6) months showing the face, left and right profiles of the accused must be attached to the
bail.

Sec. 3. No release or transfer except on court order or bail. – No person under detention by
legal process shall be released or transferred except upon order of the court or when he is admitted to
bail.

Sec. 4. Bail, a matter of right; exception. – All persons in custody shall be admitted to bail as a
matter of right, with sufficient sureties, or released on recognizance as prescribed by law or this Rule
(a) before or after conviction by the Metropolitan Trial Court, Municipal Trial Court, Municipal Trial
Court in Cities, or Municipal Circuit Trial Court, and (b) before conviction by the Regional Trial court of
an offense not punishable by death, reclusion perpetua, or life imprisonment.

Sec. 5. Bail, when discretionary. – Upon conviction by the Regional Trial Court of an offense not
punishable by death, reclusion perpetua, or life imprisonment, admission to bail is discretionary. The
application for bail may be filed and acted upon by the trial court despite the filing of a notice of
appeal, provided it has not transmitted the original record to the appellate court. However, if the
decision of the trial court conviction the accused changed the nature of the offense from non-bailable
to bailable, the application for bail can only be filed with and resolved by the appellate court.

Should the court grant the application, the accused may be allowed to continue on provisional liberty
during the pendency of the appeal under the same bail subject to the consent of the bondsman.

If the penalty imposed by the trial court is imprisonment exceeding six (6) years, the accused shall be
denied bail, or his bail shall be cancelled upon a showing by the prosecution, with notice to the accuse,
of the following or other similar circumstances:
(a) That he is a recidivist, quasi-recidivist, or habitual delinquent, or has committed the crime
aggravated by the circumstance of reiteration;

(b) That he has previously escaped from legal confinement, evaded sentence, or violated the
conditions of his bail without valid justification;

(c) That he committed the offense while under probation, parole, or conditional pardon;

(d) That the circumstances of his case indicate the probability of flight if released on bail; or

(e) That there is undue risk that he may commit another crime during the pendency of the appeal.
The appellate court may, motu proprio or on motion of any party, review the resolution of the
Regional Trial Court after notice to the adverse party in either case.

Sec. 6. Capital offense defined. – A capital offense is an offense which, under the law existing at
the time of its commission and of the application for admission to bail, may be punished with death.

Sec. 7. Capital offense or an offense punishable by reclusion perpetua or life imprisonment,

not bailable. – No person charged with a capital offense, or an offense punishable by reclusion
perpetua or life imprisonment, shall be admitted to bail when evidence of guilt is strong, regardless of
the state of the criminal prosecution.

Sec. 8. Burden of proof in bail application. – At the hearing of an application for bail filed by a
person who is in custody for the commission of an offense punishable by death, reclusion perpetua, or
life imprisonment, the prosecution has the burden of showing that evidence of guilt is strong. The
evidence presented during the bail hearing shall be considered automatically reproduced at the trial
but, upon motion of either party, the court may recall any witness for additional examination unless
the latter is dead, outside the Philippines, or otherwise unable to testify.
Sec. 9. Amount of bail; guidelines. – The judge who issued the warrant or granted the application
shall fix a reasonable amount of bail considering primarily, but not limited to, the following factors:
(a) Financial liability of the accused to give bail;
(b) Nature and circumstance of the offense;
(c) Penalty for the offense charged;
(d) Character and reputation of the accused;
(e) Age and health of the accused;
(f) Weight of the evidence against the accused;
(g) Probability of the accused appearing at the trial;
(h) Forfeiture of other bail;
(i) The fact that the accused was a fugitive from justice when arrested; and
(j) Pendency of other cases where the accused is on bail.
Excessive bail shall not be required.

Sec. 10. Corporate surety. – Any domestic or foreign corporation, licensed as a surety in
accordance with law and currently authorized to act as such, may provide bail by a bond subscribed
jointly by the accused and an officer of the corporation duly authorized by its board of directors.

Sec. 11. Property bond, how posted. – A property bond is an undertaking constituted as lien on
the real property given as security for the amount of the bail. Within ten (10) days after the approval
of the bond, the accused shall cause the annotation of the lien on the certificate of title on file with the
Registry of Deeds if the land is registered, or if unregistered, in the Registration Book on the space
provided therefore, in the Registry of Deeds for the province or city where the land lies, and on the
corresponding tax declaration in the office of the provincial, city and municipal assessor concerned.

Within the same period, the accused shall submit to the court his compliance and his failure to do so
shall be sufficient cause for the cancellation of the property bond and his re-arrest and detention.

Sec. 12. Qualifications of sureties in property bond. – The qualifications of sureties in a property
bond shall be as follows:
(a) Each must be a resident owner of real estate within the Philippines;
(b) Where there is only one surety, his real estate must be worth at least the amount of undertaking;
(c) If there are two or more sureties, each may justify in an amount less than that expressed in the
undertaking but the aggregate of the justified sums must be equivalent to the whole amount of the
bail demanded.
In all cases, every surety must be worth the amount specified in his own undertaking over and above
all just debts, obligations and properties exempt from execution.

Sec. 13. Justification of sureties. – Every surety shall justify by affidavit taken before the judge
that he possesses the qualification prescribed in the preceding section. He shall describe the property
given as security, stating the nature of his title, its encumbrances, the number and amount of other
bails entered into by him and still undischarged, and his other liabilities. The court may examine the
sureties upon oath concerning their sufficiency in such manner as it may deem proper. No bail shall be
approved unless the surety is qualified.

Sec. 14. Deposit of cash as bail. – The accused or any person acting in his behalf may deposit in
cash with the nearest collector of internal revenue or provincial, city, or municipal treasurer the
amount of bail fixed by the court, or recommended by the prosecutor who investigated or filed the
case. Upon submission of a proper certificate of deposit and a written undertaking showing compliance
with the requirements of section 2 of this Rule, the accused shall be discharged from custody. The
money deposited shall be considered as bail and applied to the payment of fine and costs while the
excess, if any, shall be returned to the accused or to whoever made the deposit.

Sec. 15. Recognizance. – Whenever allowed by law or these Rules, the court may release a person
in custody on his own recognizance or that of a responsible person.

Sec. 16. Bail, when not required; reduced bail or recognizance. – No bail shall be required when
the law or these Rules so provide.

When a person has been in custody for a period equal to or more than the possible maximum
imprisonment prescribed for the offense charged, he shall be released immediately, without prejudice
to the continuation of the trial or the proceedings on appeal. If the maximum penalty to which the
accused may be sentenced is destierro, he shall be released after thirty (30) days of preventive
imprisonment.

A person in custody for a period equal to or more than the minimum of the principal penalty
prescribed for the offense charged, without application of the Indeterminate Sentence Law or any
modifying circumstance, shall be released on a reduced bail or on his own recognizance, at the
discretion of the court.

Sec. 17. Bail, where filed. – (a) Bail in the amount fixed may be filed with the court where the case
is pending, or in the absence or unavailability of the judge thereof, with any regional trial judge,
metropolitan trial judge, municipal trial judge, or municipal circuit trial judge in the province, city or
municipality. If the accused is arrested in a province, city, or municipality other than where the case is
pending, bail may also be filed with any regional trial court of said place, of if no judge thereof is
available, with any metropolitan trial judge, municipal trial judge, or municipal circuit trial judge
therein.

(b) Where the grant of bail is a matter of discretion, or the accused seeks to be released on
recognizance, the application may only be filed in the court where the case is pending, whether on
preliminary investigation, trial, or appeal.
Any person in custody who is not yet charged in court may apply for bail with any court in the
province, city, or municipality where he is held.

Sec. 18. Notice of application to prosecutor. – In the application for bail under section 8 of this
Rule, the court must give reasonable notice of the hearing to the prosecutor or require him to submit
his recommendation.

Sec. 19. Release on bail. – The accused must be discharged upon approval of the bail by the judge
with whom it was filed in accordance with section 17 of this Rule.

When bail is filed with a court other than where the case is pending, the judge who accepted the bail
shall forward it, together with the order of release and other supporting papers, to the court where the
case is pending, which may, for good reason, require a different one to be filed.

Sec. 20. Increase or reduction of bail. – After the accused is admitted to bail, the court may, upon
good cause, either increase or reduce its amount. When increased, the accused may be committed to
custody if he does not give bail in the increased amount within a reasonable period. An accused held
to answer a criminal charge, who is released without bail upon filing of the complaint or information,
may, at any subsequent stage of the proceedings and whenever a strong showing of guilt appears to
the court, be required to give bail in the amount fixed, or in lieu thereof, committed to custody.

Sec. 21. Forfeiture of bail. – When the presence of the accused is required by the court or these
Rules, his bondsmen shall be notified to produce him before the court on a given date and time. If the
accused fails to appear in person as required, his bail shall be declared forfeited and the bondsmen
given thirty (30) days within which to produce their principal and to show why no judgment should be
rendered against them for the amount of their bail. Within the said period, the bondsmen must:
(a) produce the body of their principal or give the reason for his non-production; and
(b) explain why the accused did not appear before the court when first required to do so.
Failing in these two requisites, a judgment shall be rendered against the bondsmen, jointly and
severally, for the amount of the bail. The court shall not reduce or otherwise mitigate the liability of
the bondsmen, unless the accused has been surrendered or is acquitted.

Sec. 22. Cancellation of bail. – Upon application of the bondsmen, with due notice to the
prosecutor, the bail may be cancelled upon surrender of the accused or proof of his death.
The bail shall be deemed automatically cancelled upon acquittal of the accused, dismissal of the case,
or execution of the judgment of conviction.

In all instances, the cancellation shall be without prejudice to any liability on the bail.

Sec. 23. Arrest of accused out on bail. – For the purpose of surrendering the accused, the
bondsmen may arrest him or, upon written authority endorsed on a certified copy of the undertaking,
cause him to be arrested by a police officer or any other person of suitable age and discretion.

An accused released on bail may be re-arrested without the necessity of a warrant if he attempts to
depart from the Philippines without permission of the court where the case is pending.

Sec. 24. No bail after final judgment; exception. – No bail shall be allowed after a judgment of
conviction has become final. If before such finality, the accused applies for probation, he may be
allowed temporary liberty under his bail. When no bail was filed or the accused is incapable of filing
one, the court may allow his release on recognizance to the custody of a responsible member of the
community. In no case shall bail be allowed after the accused has commenced to serve sentence.

Sec. 25. Court supervision of detainees. – The court shall exercise supervision over all persons in
custody for the purpose of eliminating unnecessary detention. The executive judges of the Regional
Trial Courts shall conduct monthly personal inspections of provincial, city, and municipal jails and the
prisoners within their respective jurisdictions. They shall ascertain the number of detainees, inquire on
their proper accommodation and health and examine the condition of the jail facilities. They shall
order the segregation of sexes and of minors from adults, ensure the observance of the right of
detainees to confer privately with counsel, and strive to eliminate conditions inimical to the detainees.

In cities and municipalities to be specified by the Supreme Court, the municipal trial judges or
municipal circuit trial judges shall conduct monthly personal inspections of the municipal jails in their
respective municipalities and submit a report to the executive judge of the Regional Trial Court having
jurisdiction therein.

A monthly report of such visitation shall be submitted by the executive judges to the Court
Administrator which shall state the total number of detainees, the names of those held for more than
thirty (30) days, the duration of detention, the crime charged, the status of the case, the cause for
detention, and other pertinent information.

Sec. 26. Bail not a bar to objections on illegal arrest, lack of or irregular preliminary
investigation. – An application for or admission to bail shall not bar the accused from challenging the
validity of his arrest or the legality of the warrant issued therefore, or from assailing the regularity or
questioning the absence of a preliminary investigation of the charge against him, provided that he
raises them before entering his plea. The court shall resolve the matter as early as practicable but not
later than the start of the trial of the case.

Posted by Atty. Gerry T. Galacio a

Legal Procedures 06: Arrest and bail

Notes: [1] Please surf to thecomplete list of available PDFs on legal procedures in criminal
and civil cases.

[2] Please read the related post “Legal lessons from the Maguindanao massacre (02): bail”
where I discussed the practical aspects of bail like motion to reduce bail, pictures, seeking the
help of bail bondsmen or “pyansador,” what to do if someone borrows money from you to pay for bail,
etc.

[3] The authorities —police, NBI, etc.— have ten days from issuance of the warrant within
which to arrest the accused. If no arrest is made within that period of time, the reason must be
stated in a report ("return") to the judge.The court may then issue an alias warrant that is valid until
recalled.

[4] Officers of the law arresting someone by virtue of a warrant need not have the warrant with them
when making the arrest.

[5] If the private complainant executes an affidavit of desistance before the arraignment,
the public prosecutor files a motion to withdraw the information. The court recalls the warrant
or orders the release of the accused.

[6] A “buybust” operation is an entrapment procedure conducted by the police against drug pushers,
who can be arrested on the spot and then searched, even without a warrant.

[7] If the recommended bail is too high, the accused may file a “Motion To Reduce Bail.” If
granted, the court requires, however, the posting of cash bail. If the accused does not have a lawyer,
he can file the motion by himself. He can ask around the Hall of Justice for anyone who knows the
format of the motion and who can help him file it.

[8] Please read the history of the Miranda warning or the Miranda rights. The legality of an arrest can
be questioned if the police did not observe the Miranda rights of an accused. These right are enshrined
in our 1987 Constitution.

Update as of June 30, 2014

A.M. No. 12-11-2-SC (March 18, 2014) “Guidelines for Decongesting Holding Jails by Enforcing the
Rights of Accused Persons to Bail and Speedy Trial”

The order fixing the amount of bail cannot be appealed. (Sec. 4)

Bail in offenses punishable by death, reclusion perpetua, or life imprisonment (Sec. 6):

Hearing is summary in nature; the prosecution must show that the evidence of guilt is strong.

The accused may submit affidavits of witnesses.

The prosecution may (1) examine its witnesses on direct or (2) adopt the affidavits they executed
during the preliminary investigation as their direct testimonies.

The court must examine the witnesses on their direct testimonies or affidavits to ascertain if the
evidence of guilt of the accused is strong. The court’s questions need not follow any particular order
and may shift from one witness to another.

The court must then allow counsels from both sides to examine the witnesses as well. The court must
hear afterwards the oral arguments of the parties.

Within 48 hours after the hearing, the court must issue an order containing a brief summary of the
evidence presented before it, followed by its conclusion of whether or not the evidence of guilt is
strong.

This conclusion must not be regarded as a pre-judgment on the merits of the case, which will be
determined only after a full-blown trial.
CROSS EXAMINATION QUESTIONS:

The purpose of these set of questions is to establish that accused in this case were unlawfully arrested
and searched. There must be a lawful arrest before there can be a valid search incidental to an arrest
(Malacat vs CA, 283 SCRA 159, 175 (1997) cited in People vs Chua Ho San 308 SCRA 432, 449
(1999). There was NO valid warrantless arrest since accused has not committed, was not actually
committing or attempting to commit an offense in the presence of the arresting officer. If at all, they
committed a traffic violation which cannot put them under arrest. For such invalid warrantless arrest,
no valid search can be conducted.

We can question the arrest since it is related to the search conducted. “The failure to object to the
irregularity of an arrest prior to the arraignment does not involve a waiver of the inadmissibility of the
evidence. It only amounts to a submission to the jurisdiction of the trial court.”

Defense Counsel: With permission from this court, your Honor.

I. QUALIFICATIONS OF THE POLICE OFFICER

1. Mr. Witness, you’ve been a police officer for at least _ years correct?

2. You’ve been in the service since ______?

3. Your basic training, of course, includes search and arrest, right?

4. This case involves the application of your knowledge regarding search and arrest, correct?

5. In the __ years of your service, have you handled alot of drug-related cases?

6. More than 5? 10? 20? drug-related cases?

7. The incident that happened between November 24 and 25, 2011 was not the first time that
you ever handled a drug-related case, correct?

8. So you have more than adequate knowledge regarding drug violations?

II. MOBILE SURVEILLANCE OPERATION

9. I want to talk to you about the night of November 24, 2011..... That night at around 11:30PM,
you and your fellow complainants went to Villa Azura, right?

10. Your purpose in going there is to conduct a Mobile Surveillance Operation for motorcycle
thieves, correct?

11. Was there a memorandum order issued to conduct that Mobile Surveillance Operation? (If
YES, did you carry it with you during your surveillance?)
12. You did not use a patrol car for the Mobile Surveillance Operation conducted on November 24,
2011, correct? (It is not mentioned in your joint affidavit of apprehension that you used a patrol car,
right?)

13. *You used a private vehicle for the aforementioned Mobile Surveillance Operation, correct?

14. * Ordinary residents of Villa Azura could not know that the private vehicle you were using is
occupied by police officers?

15. *They could not because it was a private vehicle?

16. You were not wearing your official uniform when you conducted the surveillance on November
24, 2011, correct?

17. *You were wearing civilian clothing at that time?

III. OBSERVATIONS OF THE POLICE OFFICER

18. At around 12:30 am of November 25, 2011, you and your companions decided to leave Villa
Azura, is it not?

19. You finished conducting surveillance in Villa Azura already at that time, correct?

20. You were about to exit Villa Azura when you saw the motorcycle of Mr. Marinay and Mr.
Sajulga, right?

21. That time you were still not able to completely exit the subdivision when you saw them,
correct?

22. You were facing the highway that time, right?

23. When you saw the single XRM motorcycle colored red, was it still traversing the highway?

24. They parked their motorcycle on the curb of the north-bound lane?

25. You were still inside your (private) vehicle when you saw the motorcycle, right?

26. Did the motorcycle park in a well-lit area?

27. All of you could clearly see the motorcycle?

28. The motorcycle was far from your vehicle?

29. Was it near your vehicle?

30. It was less than 2 meters away from you?

31. It was less than 5 meters away?....so on

32. All of you could see the two(2) men disembarking from that motorcycle?
33. Could you see them clearly at that distance?

34. Could you see their faces?

35. You recognized them, correct?

36. *Did you know my clients before the incident that happened between November 24 and 25,
2011?

IV.

37. You could see what they were doing after disembarking?

38. Did they look threatening?

39. Were they armed?

40. Did they look like they were armed?

41. You presumed that they sat immediately on the concrete barrier upon “sensing” your vehicle,
correct?

42. You presumed that the reason why they sat immediately was because they sensed the
presence of police officers?

43. You consider sitting immediately on a concrete barrier upon sensing a (private) vehicle as an
unusual conduct?

44. You consider this as a suspicious conduct?

45. Their act of immediately sitting on the concrete barrier upon sensing your vehicle is what
prompted you to park your vehicle beside their motorcycle, correct?

46. Is sitting immediately on a concrete barrier upon sensing your vehicle, an overt act indicating
that they just committed a crime? If yes, proceed to number 43.

47. Is it an overt act that they were committing a crime? If yes, proceed to number 43.

48. Is it an overt act that they just attempted to commit a crime? If yes, proceed to number 43.

49. What crime or offense then?

50. All in all, you consider their act of sitting immediately on a concrete barrier upon sensing your
(private) vehicle as just a suspicious conduct, is it not?

51. It is not an illegal or criminal act, correct?

V. TRAFFIC VIOLATION
52. You proceeded to park your vehicle beside their motorcycle, correct?

53. Their motor vehicle was not moving anymore at that time, correct?

54. It was not in transit, right?

55. You deliberately parked your vehicle near the motorcycle to investigate, correct?

56. Did you and your companions disembark from your vehicle after parking near the motorcycle?

57. All of you saw at the same time that the plate number is dilapidated?

58. Was it you who saw that the plate number is already dilapidated?

59. Having a dilapidated plate number is a mere traffic violation, right?

60. Driving without registration is also a traffic violation, right?

61. You can confiscate his driver’s license only, right? (Pursuant to RA 4156)

62. For the traffic violation that they committed, you just have to take them to the police station
and issue a receipt, correct?

63. When you accosted them for the traffic violation, did they flee?

64. Did they resist your questioning?

65. They voluntarily answered your questions, correct?

VI. POUCH TIME

66. After you questioned them about their identification and the documents of the motorcycle,
you proceeded to look at the Chassis and Engine Number of the motorcycle without a search warrant,
correct?

67. During that period of time.. while you were verifying the Chassis and Engine Number, Mr.
Marinay and Mr. Sajulga were not under arrest, correct?

68. You found the pouch while checking the Chassis and Engine Number of the motorcycle,
correct?

69. When you found the pouch, was it already open? You could see what was inside? So it is only
slightly opened, correct?

70. Did you ask Mr. Marinay and Mr. Sajulga who were the owner of the aforementioned pouch?

71. *Did they confirm that they were they owner of the pouch?

72. Was it a small pouch? About the size of your palm, right?
73. It is colored dominantly in red, correct?

74. It was not a kind of pouch wherein you can see what is inside without opening it, right?

75. It really was not a transparent pouch?

76. You did not know what was inside?

77. You wanted to know what was inside, correct?

78. Did you expect to find three (3) packets of white chrystalline substance?

79. Did you ask permission from my clients to open the pouch?

80. *Did they allow you to open the pouch?

81. After that,you opened the pouch, correct?

82. You opened it when my clients were not under arrest, correct?

83. You also opened it without a search warrant?

84. Did you expect to find three (3) pieced of heat-sealed transparent plastic sachet containing
white crystalline substance before you opened it?

85. Upon seeing the three(3) pieces heat-sealed transparent plastic sachet containing white
crystalline substance believed to be Shabu, you immediately placed them under arrest, is it not?

86. You arrested Freddie Marinay and Crispen Sajulga for alleged transporting of shabu on Nov
25,2011 at 12:30 am, is it not?

87. When you effected the arrest, there was no warrant of arrest, is it not?

88. So you obtained the 0.3403 grams of shabu, prior to arresting the accused for transportation
of dangerous drugs, correct?

VII. CHAIN OF CUSTODY

1. Mr. Witness, are you familiar with RA 9165? Particularly Section 21, Art II of the said law?

2. Mr. Witness, did you prepare an inventory of the objects seized?

3. Was it prepared before the arrest?

4. Was it prepared after the arrest?

5. Were you alone when you prepared the inventory?

6. Were you with your fellow complainants?

7. Were they situated in such a way that they can clearly see what was being written in the
inventory by SPO1 Del Rosario?

8. Was the accused with you when it was prepared?

9. Am I correct Mr. Witness that the inventory was prepared not in the place where it was
seized?

10. Now, you were supposed to require the accused to sign this inventory, correct?

11. Did you have him sign this inventory?

12. Was there another person when the inventory was made?

13. Did he/they sign the inventory?

- Your Honour, we would like to call the attention of this honourable court to Exhibit C as
presented by the prosecution. It is a copy of the receipt for property seized. Only three out of four
seizing officers were able to sign Your Honour. However, no witness signed the inventory. Even the
accused himself did not sign.

VIII. Handling
1. Did you immediately mark the evidence after seizing it?
2. Did you mark it at the place where they were seized?
3. So, you only marked it after you brought them to the police station?
4. Did you immediately photograph the items seized in the crime scene?
5. You photographed it only in the police station, correct?
6. Who were present during that time?
7. Mr. Freddie Marinay and Crispen Sajulga were present, correct?
8. Where were you when it was marked?
9. Were the accused present?
10. Did you mark the 3 heat-sealed plastic sachets?
11. Who is the custodian of the items seized upon proceeding to police station?
12. Who handed the property seized to the chemist in your laboratory?
13. Was it the same sealed plastic sachet that you marked?
14. Who received the items in the laboratory?
15. Was PO2 Balacase with you when you submitted the same to the PNP Crime Laboratory?
16. Is PO2 Balacase one of the members of the apprehending team? If yes, he did not sign the
joint memorandum of apprehension that the apprehending team executed correct? Your Honor, we
would like to point out that Exhibit __ (the joint affidavit of apprehension), the name of PO2 Balacase
does not appear as one of the apprehending officers.
 Team Defenders of Dangerous Drugs

ENTRY OF APPEARANCE:
PROSECUTION: blah, blah, blah
DEFENSE: Sir Tuyugon: Your honor, my name is Atty. Julito Tuyugon. I and my co-counsels are
representing Mr. Freddie Marinay and Mr. Crispin Sajulga, the accused in this case.
Pearl: Atty. Pearl Joan Cabunoc, appearing for the defense, your honor.
Dino: Atty. Dino Lacio, appearing for the defense, your honor.
Essa: Atty. Ma. Essa Elica, appearing for the defense, your honor.
Karl: Atty. Karl Maximo Estacion IV, appearing for the defense, your honor.
Ma-an: Atty. Marianne Aiza Ga, appearing for the defense, your honor.
Shylla: Atty. Shylla Fe Daypuyat, appearing for the defense, your honor.
Berch: Atty. Berchman Melendez, appearing for the defense, your honor. That is all for the appearances
for the defense, your honor.
-----------------------------------------------------DIRECT EXAMINATION------------------------------------
--------

Defense Counsel: With permission from this court, your Honor. Atty. Tuyugon for the defense. May
I proceed with the cross examination?
Judge: Proceed counsel.
I. QUALIFICATIONS OF THE POLICE OFFICER – Mr. Tuyogon
1. Mr. Witness, you’ve been a police officer for at least _ years correct?
2. You’ve been in the service since ______?
3. Your basic training, of course, includes search and arrest, right?
4. This case involves the application of your knowledge regarding search and arrest, correct?
5. In the __ years of your service, have you handled alot of drug-related cases?
6. More than 5? 10? 20? drug-related cases?
7. The incident that happened between November 24 and 25, 2011 was not the first time that you
ever handled a drug-related case, correct?
8. So you have more than adequate knowledge regarding drug violations?

Defense Counsel : Your Honor, may I call on my co-counsel to continue the cross examination?
II. MOBILE SURVEILLANCE OPERATION – Pearl
Defense Counsel: Atty. Cabunoc for the defense your Honor, may I proceed with the cross
examination?
Judge: Proceed.
9. Mr. Witness...I want to talk to you about the night of November 24, 2011..... That night at
around 11:30PM, you and your fellow complainants went to Villa Azura, right?
10. Your purpose in going there is to conduct a Mobile Surveillance Operation for motorcycle thieves,
correct?
11. Was there a memorandum order issued to conduct that Mobile Surveillance Operation? (If YES,
did you carry it with you during your surveillance?)
12. Did you use a patrol car for the Mobile Surveillance Operation conducted on November 24, 2011?
So it was a private vehicle then?
13. Were you in your official uniform when you conducted the surveillance on the evening of
November 24, 2011? You were in your civilian clothing at that time?
Objection of Prosecution: That question was already answered by the witness, your Honor.
Judge: I rule, rule, rule on that objection. Blah, blah, blah
Defense: (if allowed to rebut objection) It is just a clarificatory question regarding his testimony,
your Honor. To check his consistency in answering the given questions. In other words, testing
his credibility. Chikahi si sir.
14. So then Mr. Witness, the defendants couldn’t have known you were police officers before you
introduced yourself to them, is it not?
Objection: The witness is not in the better position to answer that question, your Honor.
Judge: TOMOH. I rule on that objection.
Defense: (if allowed to rebut)Shhh...paghelom . HEHE. The defense just want to emphasize that
the police officers did not make it obvious that they were police officers. So how come that they
seem to allege that accused stopped immediately upon sensing the presence of police officers.
Thereby making it seem like they were trying to hide some criminal activity. Chikaness.
 15. Therefore, Mr. Witness, is it not a logical conclusion that the defendants stopped and parked
their vehicle not because they sensed the presence of police officers?
DEFENSE COUNSEL: Your honor, may I request my co-counsel to continue the cross-examination?
Judge: (Kaw gud.) Proceed counsel.
III. OBSERVATIONS OF THE POLICE OFFICER – Mr. Lacio
DEFENSE COUNSEL: Atty. Lacio for the defense, your honor. May I proceed with the cross-
examination?
Judge: Proceed.
16. At around 12:30 am of November 25, 2011, you and your companions decided to leave Villa
Azura, is it not?
17. You were about to exit Villa Azura when you saw the motorcycle of Mr. Marinay and Mr. Sajulga,
right?
18. That time you were still not able to completely exit the subdivision when you saw them, correct?
19. Were you facing the highway that time?
20. When you saw the single XRM motorcycle colored red, was it still traversing the highway?
21. Where did they park their motorcycle?
22. You were still inside your (private) vehicle when you saw the motorcycle, right?
23. Did the motorcycle park in a well-lit area?
24. All of you could clearly see the motorcycle?
25. How far was the motorcycle when you saw it?
26. All of you could see the two(2) men disembarking from that motorcycle?
27. Could you see them clearly at that distance?
28. Could you see their faces?
29. Did you recognize them?
30. *Did you know my clients before the incident that happened between November 24 and 25,
2011?
Defense Counsel : Your Honor, I request my co-counsel to continue the cross-examination.
Judge: Proceed.
IV. SUSPICIOUS CONDUCT – Essa
Defense Counsel: Atty. Elica, your Honor, may I continue with the cross-examination questions?
Judge: Proceed.
31. When you saw them, could you see what they were doing after they disembarked?
32. Did they look threatening?
33. Did they look like they were armed?
34. You presumed that the reason why they sat immediately was because they sensed the presence
of police officers, correct?
35. Do you consider sitting immediately on a concrete barrier upon sensing the presence of you
and your fellow police officers as an unusual or suspicious conduct?
36. This unusual or suspicious conduct is the reason why you decided to investigate the two(2)
men, right?
37. While they were sitting on the concrete pavement did they do an overt act indicating that they
just committed a crime?
38. Did they do an overt act that they were committing a crime?
39. Did they do an overt act that they just attempted to commit a crime?
40. What possible crime or offense then, Mr. Witness?
41. All in all, you consider their act of sitting immediately on a concrete barrier upon sensing your
presence as a suspicious conduct, am I correct?
42. Is it an illegal or criminal conduct?
Defense Counsel: Your Honor, may I call on my co-counsel to continue with the cross-examination?
Judge: Proceed.
V. TRAFFIC VIOLATION – Karl
Defense Counsel: Atty. Estacion for the defense, your honor. May I proceed with the cross-examination?
Judge: Proceed.
43. After seeing the suspicious conduct of the accused, you proceeded to park your vehicle beside
their motorcycle, correct?
44. Their motor vehicle was not in transit anymore at that time, correct?
45. Did you deliberately park your vehicle near the motorcycle to investigate the accused?
46. Did you and your companions disembark from your vehicle after parking near the motorcycle?
47. Was it you who saw that the plate number is already dilapidated?
 48. Is having a dilapidated plate number a traffic violation?
49. Driving without proper documents is also a traffic violation, am I right?
50. As a police officer, what is the general procedure when you apprehend someone for a traffic
violation?
51. For the traffic violation that they committed, did you intend to confiscate their driver’s license?
52. Did you intend to issue a Traffic Citation Ticket?
53. Did you intend to arrest them for the said traffic violation?
54. When you accosted them for the traffic violation, did they flee?
55. Was there an attempt to flee on their part?
56. Did they resist your questioning?
Defense Counsel : Your Honor, may I request my co-counsel to continue the cross examination?
Judge: Proceed Counsel.
VI. POUCH TIME – Ma-an
Defense Counsel : Atty. Ga for the defense, your Honor. May I proceed with the cross-examination?
Judge: Proceed, counsel.
57. Mishtah Witness, after you questioned them about their identification and the documents of the
motorcycle, you proceeded to look at the Chassis and Engine Number of the motorcycle without
a search warrant, correct?
58. During that period of time.. while you were verifying the Chassis and Engine Number, Mr.
Marinay and Mr. Sajulga were not under arrest, correct?
59. You found the pouch while checking the Chassis and Engine Number of the motorcycle, correct?
60. When you found the pouch, was it closed?
61. Did you ask Mr. Marinay and Mr. Sajulga who was the owner of the aforementioned pouch?
62. What did the pouch look like?
63. Was it a transparent pouch?
64. Prior to opening the pouch, you did not know what was inside, correct?
65. Did you ask permission from my clients to open the pouch?
66. Did they allow you to open the pouch?
67. You opened the pouch when my clients were not under arrest, correct?
68. Upon seeing the three(3) pieces of heat-sealed transparent plastic sachet containing white
crystalline substance believed to be Shabu, did you immediately place them under arrest?
69. For what crime did you arrest them, Mr. Witness?
70. So you seized the alleged 0.3403 grams of shabu, prior to arresting the accused for
transportation of dangerous drugs?
Defense Counsel : Your Honor, my co-counsel will continue with the cross examination.
VII. CHAIN OF CUSTODY – Shylla
Defense Counsel: Atty. Daypuyat, your honor. May I continue with the cross-examination?
Judge: Proceed.
1. Mr. Witness, are you familiar with RA 9165? Particularly Section 21, Art II of the said law?
2. Mr. Witness, did you prepare an inventory of the objects seized?
3. Was it prepared before the arrest?
4. Was it prepared after the arrest?
5. Am I correct Mr. Witness that the inventory was prepared not in the place where it was seized?
6. Potential follow-up question if answer in No. 24 is YES: But Mr. Witness, you mentioned a while
ago that the place was well-lit, am I right? You mean to say, even if the area was well-lit and
you were able to clearly see the motorcycle, the place was still not conducive for the making of
the inventory? So it was prepared in the police station?
7. Were you alone when you prepared the inventory?
8. Were you with your fellow complainants?
9. Were they situated in such a way that they can clearly see what was being written in the
inventory by SPO1 Del Rosario?
10. Was the accused with you when it was prepared?
11. Am I correct Mr. Witness that the inventory was prepared not in the place where it was seized?
12. Now, you were supposed to require the accused to sign this inventory, correct?
13. Did you have him sign this inventory?
14. Did your fellow complainants sign the inventory?
- Your Honour, we would like to call the attention of this honourable court to Exhibit C as
presented by the prosecution. It is a copy of the receipt for property seized. Only three out
 of four seizing officers were able to sign Your Honour. However, no witness signed the
inventory. Even the accused himself did not sign.
Defense Counsel: Your honor, I would like to request my co-counsel to continue the cross-
examination.
VIII. Handling - Berch
Defense Counsel: Atty. Melendez for the defense, your honor. May I continue the cross-
examination?
Judge: Proceed.
1. Did you immediately mark the evidence after seizing it?
2. Did you mark it at the place where they were seized?
3. So, you only marked it after you brought them to the police station?
4. Did you immediately photograph the items seized in the crime scene?
5. You photographed it only in the police station, correct?
6. Who were present during that time?
7. Mr. Freddie Marinay and Crispin Sajulga were present, correct?
8. Where were you when it was marked?
9. Were the accused present?
10. Did you mark the 3 heat-sealed plastic sachets?
11. Who is the custodian of the items seized upon proceeding to police station?
12. Who handed the property seized to the chemist in your laboratory?
13. Was it the same sealed plastic sachet that you marked?
14. Who received the items in the laboratory?
15. Was PO2 Balacase with you when you submitted the same to the PNP Crime Laboratory?
16. Is PO2 Balacase one of the members of the apprehending team? If yes, he did not sign
the joint memorandum of apprehension that the apprehending team executed correct?
Your Honor, we would like to point out that Exhibit __ (the joint affidavit of
apprehension), the name of PO2 Balacase does not appear as one of the apprehending
officers.
DEFENSE COUNSEL : NO FURTHER QUESTIONS FOR THE CROSS EXAMINATION, YOUR HONOR.
Judge: Re-direct?
PROSECUTOR: Yes, your Honor.
-----------------------------------------------------RE-DIRECT-------------------------------------------------
------------------
PROSECUTOR: No more questions, your Honor.
Judge: RE-CROSS?
DEFENSE COUNSEL : Yes, your Honor.
----------------------------------------------------RE-CROSS--------------------------------------------------
--------------------
1. Where did you find the pouch containing the alleged white chrystaline substance?
2. Did you find it in the outer clothing of Mr. Freddie Marinay?
3. Did you find it in the outer clothing of Mr. Crispen Sajulga?
DEFENSE COUNSEL : No more questions for re-cross examination, your Honor.
----------------------FORMAL OFFER OF EVIDENCE BY THE PROSECUTION---------------------------------
--------------

PROSECUTOR: Your Honor, we are now resting the case for the prosecution.

Judge: How do you intend to submit your formal offer?

PROSECUTOR: We can now offer our evidence, Your Honor.

Judge: Proceed.

PROSECUTOR: OFFERS EVIDENCE blah, blah, blah ...closing arguments mode...grrrr

Judge(referring to the defense): Any comment?

DEFENSE COUNSEL: (sample lang ni from the net since I still don’t have the list of all the exhibits
intended to be offered by the prosecution) As to Exhibits A, A-1, A-2 and A-3 we admit the existence
and authenticity, Your Honor.

As to Exhibit B, we admit its existence but not its purpose.

As to Exhibits C and C-1, we can only admit as to the existence of the text messages but not its
authenticity.

As to Exhibit D and D-1, we admit the existence and authenticity, Your Honor.

As to Exhibit E, we admit its authenticity and genuineness.

As to Exhibit F, we admit its existence but not its purpose. ------closing arguments mode if allowed by
Atty. Valdez..grrr

COURT: Acting on the formal offer of exhibits of the prosecutor and comments thereon by the defense
counsel, the Court resolves to admit all the exhibits offered by the defense counsel specified in the
offer. ---the END—picture-picture...Anton’s mode. Kaon ta daghan. Mamawi ta sa kakapoy og kaulaw.

P.S.: TO THE DEFENSE, PLEASE EDIT YOUR PARTS IF YOU FIND SOMETHING WRONG IN THE WAY
THE QUESTIONS WERE PHRASED OR IF THE QUESTION IS REDUNDANT. YOU CAN ASK NON-LEADING
QUESTIONS IF LEADING QUESTIONS ARE NOT NECESSARY. JUST MAKE SURE THAT THE ANSWER TO
SUCH QUESTION IS CERTAIN OR CAN ALREADY BE GLEANED FROM THE EVIDENCE. THANKS.

TO BOTH TEAMS, WE CAN DO IT! WE’RE ALL IN THIS TOGETHER ALA HIGH SCHOOL MUSICAL. 
BEST OF LUCK AND GOD BLESS, EVERYONE. YAY!

CROSS EXAM QUESTIONS FOR POLICE OFFICERS WHO ARE OPERATIVES IN AN ANTI-
ILLEGAL DRUGS BUY-BUST OPERATION
Witness: __________________________ Task: _____________________________
Date/Time/Place of the Alleged Operation: _____________________________________

PRIOR TO BUY-BUST

Ask #1 & 2, If the Police Officer is not a member of Anti-illegal Drugs Special Task Group:
1. Is it not your procedure Police Officer that only personnel assigned with the Anti-Illegal Drugs
Unit are the only authorized personnel allowed to conduct Anti-Illegal Drugs Operation? (YES as
per PNP Manual)
2. You are not assigned to the Anti-Illegal Drugs Unit, Police Officer, am I correct? (YES/NO)
------------------
3. You testified that on __________ at around _____, your CI reported to you at your office
regarding an illegal drug pushing activity, is it not? (YES)
4. And this involved a certain __________, correct? (Yes)
5. You also testified that upon receipt of this info from your CI, you looked into your Illegal Drugs
Order of Battle list and found out that the name _____ listed there, correct?
 May I know how a name may be listed in that Illegal Drugs Order of Battle list that you
are referring to?
6. Do you have proof that indeed this incident transpired?
7. You did not submit as part of your evidence that Illegal Drugs Order of Battle list you are
referring to where the name of ____________ is listed correct?
8. You did not prepare any incident or spot report about what transpired between you and your
CI, correct?
9. Isn’t that when someone comes to your office and reports something particularly the occurrence
of a crime, such is recorded in the police blotter, correct?
10. There was no compliance with this correct?
 11. And such was not submitted to this Honorable Court as evidence to prove your contention,
correct?
12. Your are a police officer, correct?
13. And as police officers, you were trained to follow procedures and orders, correct?
14. But in this simple procedure, you failed to do so, correct?
15. Is it not correct Police Officer that you are required to conduct proper and adequate planning
and preparation before conducting a buy-bust operation? (YES)
16. This is to ensure the successful prosecution of cases and the observance of the rights of the
accused, am I correct?
17. The truth is that you did not conduct one in this case, am I correct Police Officer? (YES)
18. Because if you really did then this should have been part of the evidence to be presented to
justify your claim, correct?
19. And that you should not have complied even with your internal procedure, correct?
20. You testified that you conducted briefing – initial and final? (YES)
21. And in that briefing those involved in the operation were assigned tasks, am I correct? (YES)
22. You were assigned as POSEUR-BUYER/IMMEDIATE BACK-UP only, correct?
23. __________ was assigned as POSEUR-BUYER/IMMEDIATE BACK-UP, correct?
24. And the rest as perimeter security, correct?
 Who else were assigned task if there be any?
25. But you did not have a Team Leader, who will man the operation, correct?
26. No one was assigned an Arresting Officer, correct?
27. No one was assigned as Investigator, correct?
28. No one was assigned as Seizing/Inventory Officer, correct?
29. No one was assigned as Recorder, correct?
30. No one was assigned as Photographer, correct?
31. Again this is part of your standard operating procedure, correct?
32. And again, there was no compliance with such?
33. As Police Officers then, you are trained to go away with established rules of procedure, correct?
(NO)
34. Isn’t that this procedure were established to protect your rights more so the accused from abuse
of authority by law enforcers, correct?
35. But in this case you disregarded this, correct?

36. Check if there is a coordination with PDEA, if there’s none:

Is it not that you are required to coordinate your AID operation with PDEA? (YES)
And you did not do so, am I correct? (NO)
If answer is NO: What is your evidence that you coordinated?
You do not have a coordination report, am I correct?

ACTUAL BUY-BUST
1. You all proceeded to the area of transaction at the same time, correct Police Officer? (YES)
a. If NO: ask who went first, how many vehicles used?
2. Upon arrival thereat, members of you team prepositioned themselves, am I correct? (YES)
a. Did you know where the other members of your team positioned themselves? (Most
often I don’t know)
b. Was it not part of your planning/briefing session? (It is.)
c. Despite such, you do not know where other members of your team were positioned?
3. You are the [POSUER-BUYER / IMMEDIATE BACK-UP/ARRESTING OFFICER] correct?
a. Is it not that a POSUER-BUYER is an undercover Police Officer who acts as a buyer of
illegal drugs for purposes of effecting the arrest of the offender, correct?
b. Is it not that the IMMEIDATE BACKUP/ARRESTING OFFICER is a Police Officer tasked to
apprehend the suspect/s, correct?
c. You mentioned earlier that you were the _______________, is it not that you performed
the task of _____________ which is not your responsibility, am I correct? (YES)
d. Is it not the seizing officer is designated to confiscate and inventory all evidences taken
from the arrested person and not to make the arrest, am I correct? (YES)
e. In this case, you went beyond your scope, am I correct? (YES)
f. I believe these were all discussed in your briefing right Police Officer? (YES)
 g. This was clearly laid down by your team leader to ensure the successful operation, safety
of operating elements, the security and integrity of seized items/evidence while
observing the rights of suspects, correct? (YES)
h. You are police officer and you were trained to follow instructions to the letter, am I
correct Police Officer? (YES)
i. In this case, you did not? (YES but surely the Police Officer will say NO)
4. You did not perform the pre-arranged signal as you have discussed in your briefing, am I correct
Police Officer? (Surely, PO will say I did...)
5. There is no evidence on record that would say you did, am I correct Police Officer? (Surely, PO
will say there is...)

If the pre-arranged signal is a missed call:

6. You do not have any certification to that effect from the TelCo Provider that said call indeed
really happened or made on said date and time as you have alleged, correct Police Officer?

7. The sale transaction as you claimed it to be did not happen, am I correct Police Officer? (Surely,
PO will say it did happen...)
8. There is no evidence on record that would say you that the sale transaction was consummated,
am I correct Police Officer? (Surely, PO will say there is...)
a. The marked money? (YES)
b. Which you prepared and marked? (YES)
c. Which you have allegedly handed to the seller? (YES)
d. Which you did not subject to finger print analysis to determine whether it really did pass
to the seller, am I correct? (YES)
e. Is it not that your office has a fund from which buy-bust money will be drawn for such
purpose?
f. And you have withdrawn the buy bust money from the said fund, correct?
g. Is it not that is part of your procedure that the officer receiving the buy-bust money
shall issue a receipt for the said purpose, am I correct? (YES)
h. You received it, am I correct? (YES)
i. There was no receipt issued for that purpose, am I correct? (Yes)
j. You did not follow your procedure/protocol regarding this one, correct?
9. So there is no evidence to bolster your claim that indeed the sale transaction was consummated,
correct Police Officer?

AFTER BUY-BUST
10. After the alleged sale transaction was consummated, you declared the arrest correct Police
Officer? (YES)
11. It is not your duty to do so as you were assigned as Seizing/Inventory Officer, am I correct?
(YES but the PO will say NO)
12. Is it not that it is the duty of the arresting officer to search the body of the suspect for any
deadly weapon and for the recovery of the buy-bust money? (YES)
13. And such did not happen in this case, am I correct Police Officer? (YES but surely the PO will
contradict it and will say NO...)
14. But earlier you made mention that you were only tasked as Poseur-buyer and seizing officer,
am I correct? (YES)
15. And again, you went beyond your scope/assigned task, am I correct Police Officer? (YES)
16. You did not have a photographer, am I right? (NO)
a. Who acted as photographer? PO may refer to another person...
Ask the following if the photographer is the Poseur-Buyer or the Immediate Back-up:
b. Is it not the duty of the Seizing Officer to mark and photograph the seized/recovered
evidence in accordance with Sec 21 of RA 9165? (YES/NO)
c. Again such did not happen in this case, am I right Police Officer?
17. Is it not that the inventory and photographing of the pieces of evidence seized must be done
immediately after the discovery/seizure of confiscated items, am I correct Police Officer? (YES)
18. But such did not happen in this case correct? (PO will surely say NO...)
19. And that such should be done in the presence of the required witnesses - an elected official and
a representative from either the DOJ or media, correct Police Officer? (YES)
a. Who were again your witnesses?
 Determine when did the witnesses arrived and who called for then and when were they called.
20. You earlier mentioned that the (Elected Barangay Official/DOJ or Media Rep) arrived ___
minutes later after you declared arrest and have seized the evidence, am I correct? (YES)
21. So you are now saying that the inventory and photographing is not immediate because you still
have to wait for ___ minutes for the witnesses to arrive, am I correct? (YES)
22. That when the witnesses arrived, all they were made to do is to sign the inventory
receipt/certification of inventory, correct?
23. That during the time of waiting, there is possibility of movement or alteration of the evidence
seized, am I correct Police Officer?
24. That during that time of waiting, the accused was closely guarded and was restrained from
movement by members of your team, am I correct Police Officer?
25. That at that point in time, he/she is out-numbered by your team who are fully armed, am I
correct?
26. There were no photographs taken immediately after the discovery/seizure of confiscated items,
am I correct Police Officer? (NO)
27. Were you the photographer of your team then? (NO)
28. As Seizing/ Inventory Officer, isn’t that you are tasked to prepare a list of inventory receipt of
confiscation/ seizure, correct? Were you the one who prepared the inventory Police Officer?
29. Is it not that according to your procedure, all pieces of drug evidence shall be turned over by
the Seizing Officer to the Investigator-On-Case who shall submit the same to either the PDEA
Laboratory Service or PNP Crime Laboratory for examination, correct?
30. And that this turn-over of evidence must have corresponding receipts to show continuance of
chain of custody, correct Police Officer?
31. And again this did not happen in this case, correct?
32. Is it not that the Seizing Officer is also tasked to properly accomplish the Chain of Custody Form
and turn it over including the evidence to the Investigator-On-Case, correct?
33. And that this should also be prepared at the place of inventory/seizure of the confiscated items
correct to establish the start of the preservation of the chain of custody of the seized items
correct?
34. And again this did not happen in this case correct?
35. Is it not that it is part of your SOP that after the inventory and taking of photographs, the
arresting/seizing officer shall turn-over the arrested persons and the seized evidence to the
investigator who shall issue an acknowledgment receipt thereof, am I correct?
36. And again there was no compliance with this procedure, correct Police Officer? (Surely the PO
will say NO)
37. There was no acknowledgment receipt on record correct Police Officer? (YES)
38. Isn’t that the investigator, after the buy-bust, shall prepare the referral of the case to the
Prosecutor’s Office for inquest proceedings for Violation of RA 9165? (YES)
39. Attaching the following correct?
(a) Copy of the Spot Report
(b) Copy of the Inventory of Property Seized duly verified under oath
(c) Copy of the Request for and Result of Laboratory Examination/ Chemical Analysis of
seized items
(d) Copy of the Request for and Result of Physical/Medical Examination and Laboratory
Screening Test of the suspects
(e) Copy of the Request for and Result of Ultra Violet Examination on the buy-bust money
used and the suspect
(f) Affidavit of Arrest executed by the Arresting Officer
(g) Affidavit of Poseur Buyer
(h) Affidavit of the Investigator on Case
(i) Accomplished Chain of Custody Form
(j) Copy of the initial laboratory screening test result
(k) Copy of the Receipt of Turn-Over of Evidence
(l) Copy of the Receipt of Turn-Over of arrested suspect/s
(m) Duly accomplished Booking Sheet and Arrest Report
(n) Photographs of the suspect/s and evidence
40. And again there was no compliance with this procedure, correct Police Officer? (Surely the PO
will say NO)
41. There was no referral in this case made by the investigator correct Police Officer? (YES)
42. Verify turn-over of evidence from officer to another. Break the chain of custody.