Complaint: Supreme Court First Division People of The Philippines
Complaint: Supreme Court First Division People of The Philippines
Complaint: Supreme Court First Division People of The Philippines
SUPREME COURT
FIRST DIVISION
PEOPLE OF THE
PHILIPPINES,
Plaintiff-
Appellee,
-versus-
COMPLAINT
BACKGROUND FACTS
1. On 6 September 2008, a confidential informant reported to Col. Roderick Mariano, Chief
of the District Anti-Illegal Drug (DAID) Office at U.N. Avenue Police Station in Manila the
alleged drug peddling activities of a certain alias Akmad along Arlegui St., Quiapo, Manila.
Col. Mariano formed a team to conduct a buy bust operation headed by SP04 Rafael
Melencio, P02 Richard Donato as the poseur buyer, and P03 Eliseo Tolentino.
2. P02 Donato prepared the P200.00 marked bill as buy bust money and coordinated with the
Philippine Drug Enforcement Agency (PDEA). At around 6:00 p.m. of the same day, P02
Donato and P03 Tolentino proceeded to Arlegui St., Quiapo, Manila on board the tricycle
of the former, together with the confidential informant. The other police officers boarded a
Tamaraw FX vehicle.
3. When they arrived near the target area, P02 Donato and the confidential informant walked
toward MLQU (Manuel L. Quezon University) where accused-appellant was waiting. The
informant approached accused appellant and introduced P02 Donato as a buyer of shabu.
The latter handed the P200.00 marked money to accused-appellant.
4. After receiving the money, accused-appellant took out from his pocket one (1) heat sealed
plastic sachet and handed the same to P02 Donato. The latter immediately executed the
pre-arranged signal prompting the other police officers to approach and effect the arrest
of accused-appellant.
5. That on or about September 6, 2008, in the city of Manila, Philippines, the said accused,
not being lawfully authorized by law to sell, trade, deliver or give away to another any
dangerous drug, did then and there willfully, unlawfully and knowingly sell ZERO POINT
ZERO SIXTEEN (0.016) gram of white crystalline substance containing methamphetamine
hydrochloride commonly known as SHABU, a dangerous drug contrary to law.
PRAYER
1. The Court a quo gravely erred in giving weight and credence to the materially inconsistent
and incredible testimonies of the prosecution witnesses.
2. The Court a quo gravely erred in convicting the accused-appellant despite the prosecution's
failure to prove the elements of the crime charged.
3. The court a quo gravely erred in finding the accused-appellant guilty despite the arresting
officers' non-compliance with Section 21 of the Republic Act no. 9165 and its implementing
regulations.
Parok Lamudag
Plaintiff
3.I hereby certify that we have not commenced any similar action
or filed any claim involving the same respondents in relation to
the same in any court, tribunal or quasi-judicial agency, and to
the best of my knowledge, no such other action or claim is
pending; and