REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES

REGIONAL TRIAL COURT

NATIONAL CAPITAL JUDICIAL REGION
BRANCH 116, PASAY CITY

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES,

- versus - CRIMINAL CASE NO.

03-1178
ALFIE C. DICSAY,
Accused.
X-----------------------------------------X

MEMORANDUM FOR THE ACCUSED

ALFIE C. DICSAY

Accused, ALFIE C. DICSAY, through the undersigned Counsel de Officio,

and unto this Honorable Court, in support of his defense, hereby submits this

Memorandum.

I. THE CHARGE

The Information against the ACCUSED reads as follows:

“That on or about the 3rd day of July , 2003, in

Pasay City, Metro Manila, Philippines and within the
jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the above-named
accused , without authority of law, did then and there
willfully, unlawfully and feloniously have in his
possession , custody and control 0.04 gram of
Methylamphetamine Hydrochloride (shabu).

Contrary to law.”
07 July 2003, Pasay City, Metro Manila.

II. EVIDENCE FOR THE PROSECUTION

The prosecution claims that around 6:00 P.M. July 3, 2003, PO1 Omar

Sarahan received a telephone call from a concerned citizen residing at Brgy. Sto.

Nino, Pasay City. That the concerned citizen informed him of one male person

wearing bull cap, yellow t-shirt , maong pants, going toward the Police

community Precinct, who allegedly was carrying shabu. That this witness

immediately instructed his superior, who in turn instructed him and SPO1 Alfredo

Llanillo to wait for the unidentified male person. This witness positioned himself
at the main door of the precinct. While SPO1 Llanillo positioned himself along

Taft Avenue, Pasay City.

According to this witness, after a few minutes, the male person who fitted

the description given by the telephone caller. That the male person was merely

walking towards the Police precinct when first seen by this witness. This witness

approached the said male person. It is further alleged by this witness that the

male person turned his back and attempted to run away. SPO1 Llanillo was able

to grab the right hand of the male. Llanillo asked the male person “bat ka

tatakbo, may dala ka bang iligal diyan?” That the male person answered that he

has something and pulled it from his pocket. The male person handed to Llanillo

a transparent plastic sachet. This led to the arrest of the male person, the

accused, Alfie Dicsay.

ISSUE

WHETHER OR NOT THE PROSECUTION

HAS PROVEN THE GUILT OF THE ACCUSED
BEYOND REASONABLE DOUBT

DISCUSSION

As can be read from the records of this case, the person of the accused-

Dicsay was arrested on the basis of suspicion. The prosecution witness- PO1

Omar Sarahan testified that the accused was merely walking along Taft Avenue,

Pasay City. They categorically stated that Dicsay was not in any manner

committing any offense when they approached him. They accosted him on the

basis that the clothes he wore at that time fitted the description given to their

office by the unidentified caller.

It is a rule that suspicion cannot be the basis of a lawful arrest. In People

v. Aminudin(16SCRA402), If a person is arrested merely on suspicion that he is

engaged in some felonious enterprise , and in order to discover if he has indeed

committed a crime , it is not only the arrest which is illegal but also, the search on

the occasion thereof as being the “fruit of the poisonous tree”. In that event, any

evidence taken, even if confirmatory of the initial suspicion, is inadmissible

for any purpose in any proceedings. (People v. Rodriguez, 51 SCAD 355,

G.R. No. 79965, May 25, 1994).(emphasis ours)

It is a well-settled rule that testimonial evidence to be believed must not

only proceed from the mouth of a credible witness but must foremost be credible

in itself. The test to determine the value or credibility of testimony of a witness is

whether or not such is in conformity with common knowledge and consistent with

the experience of mankind. (People vs. Quibido, et al G.R. No. 136113, August

23, 2000). It must be noted that the prosecution witness testified that the

accused-Dicsay voluntarily handed to them a transparent plastic sachet alleged

“shabu”. Such statement runs contrary to human experience. No person would

deliberately show police officers a thing which would incriminate him. If Dicsay

had indeed something to hide or to be wary of, it would have been a natural

reaction for him to evade the police officers or at least exert an effort to conceal

the alleged transparent plastic sachet. Moreso, it would have been more natural

for Dicsay to avoid passing by the police precinct. Further, it is unbelievable

for alleged suspicious-looking persons to admit to police officers that they

have in their possession illegal objects.

To sustain conviction, the prosecution evidence must stand or fall on its

own merits and cannot draw strength from the weakness of the Defense.(Pp. vs

Obar, 253 SCRA 288)

It is the Prosecution which has the burden of proving the guilt of the

accused based solely on the evidence it adduced and cannot rely on the inability

of the Defense to raise exculpatory facts or that the Defense was not able to

establish matters in mitigation beyond reasonable doubt or that the Defense was

unable to demonstrate truth of matters by a preponderance of evidence or even

to reasonable probability. (Pp. vs. Noel Santos and Feliciano Funcion, G.R.

No.127500, June 8, 2000 citing Pp. vs. Geron 281 SCRA 36). In the language

of the Supreme Court:

 “The prosecution cannot be allowed to draw strength from the weakness

of the defense’s evidence for it has the onus probandi in establishing the guilt of

the accused – ei incumbit probation qui dicit, non qui negat – he who asserts, not

he who denies must prove” (Pp. vs. Sevilla, et.al. G.R. No. 124077, September

5, 2000; Pp vs. Masalihit, 300 SCRA 147, 159)

It is axiomatic, therefore, that an accused, under our law, is entitled to

acquittal unless his guilt is proved beyond reasonable doubt (Pp. vs.

Abellanosa, 264 SCRA 722) for it is better to liberate a guilty man than unjustly

keep in prison one whose guilt has not been proved by the required quantum of

evidence (Pp. vs. Esmaquilan, 255 SCRA 289)

While the court is mindful that law enforcers enjoy the presumption of

regularity in the performance of their official duties, this presumption cannot

prevail over the constitutional right of the accused to be presumed innocent and it

cannot, by itself, constitute proof of guilt beyond reasonable doubt.(Pp. vs. Sapal

328 SCRA 417)

Accusation is not, according to the fundamental law, synonymous with

guilt. It is incumbent on the prosecution to demonstrate that culpability lies.

Appellants were not even called upon then to offer evidence on their behalf.

Their freedom is forfeit only of the requisite quantum of proof necessary for

conviction be in existence. Their guilt must be shown beyond reasonable doubt.

To such a standard, this court has always been committed. There is need,

therefore, for the most careful scrutiny of the testimony of the State, both oral and

documentary, independently of whatever defense is offered by the accused.

Only if the judge below and the appellant tribunal could arrive at a conclusion that

the crime had been committed precisely by the person on trial under such an

exacting test should the sentence be one for conviction. It is thus required that

every circumstance favoring his innocence be duly taken into account. The proof

against him must survive the test of reason; the strongest suspicion must not be

permitted to sway judgment. The conscience must be satisfied that on the

defendant could be laid the responsibility of the offense charged; that not only did

he perpetrate the act but that it amounted to a crime. What is required then is

moral certainty. (Pp. vs. Pableo Dramayo, et.al. 42 SCRA 59)

Proof beyond reasonable doubt establishing the guilt of the accused is

wanting in this case. There is reasonable doubt as to the culpability of the

accused as viewed from the foregoing discussion, hence accused should be

ACQUITTED.

PRAYER

WHEREFORE, PREMISES CONSIDERED, it is most respectfully prayed

of this Honorable Court, after evaluating and considering all the evidence

submitted and heard, that:

1. That the Accused be acquitted of the charge of Violation of

Sec. 11 Art. II R.A. 9165, imputed against him for lack of merit.

2. Other relief and remedy, congruent with equity and justice are

likewise prayed for.

Respectfully submitted this 5th day January , 2004, Pasay City,

Philippines.

PUBLIC ATTORNEY’S OFFICE

Room 401 Fourth Floor
Hall of Justice, Pasay City

BY:

ATTY. CATHERINE CECILIA R. DULAY

Public Attorney II
Roll No. 47476

COPY FURNISHED:

ARTEMIO. T. PUTI
Assistant City Prosecutor
Hall of Justice, Pasay City