Proceeding: Presentation of witness by defendant

Date: October 19, 2016

Presided by: Hon. Leopoldo E. Baraquia
People vs Masuela
This case involves violation of The Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002 or
Republic Act No. 9165. The accused was charged of the offense under the said act, to wit:
Section 11. Possession of Dangerous Drugs. - The penalty of life imprisonment to death and a
fine ranging from Five hundred thousand pesos (P500,000.00) to Ten million pesos (P10,000,000.00)
shall be imposed upon any person, who, unless authorized by law, shall possess any dangerous
drug depending on the quantity thereof.

The accused in this case presented his testimony to refute the crime being imputed against
him, and did not deploy Judicial Affidavit. The charge concerned a criminal case which the imposable
penalty exceeds 6 years. In this regard, the accused may opt not to avail of Judicial Affidavit Rule.
Accused in this case persistently claimed that he committed no crime. He alleged that at the
time of his apprehension he was only watching some persons playing cara y cruz, and the officer placed
in his hand a considerable quantity of prohibited drugs, which resulted to his arrest. Thus, he basically
raised the defense of alibi or frame-up.
As for the prosecution, on the other hand, during cross-examination asked how far he was
from the crowd that playing cara y cruz, and tried to assert that the defendant had the opportunity to
see the officer holding a prohibited drug, and in such case, he can elude the untoward circumstance.
Accused responded that even so, he cannot evade such instance since he has polio and a weak body.
Accused in this case had already suffered 6 years incarceration. The author of this report
humbly submits that this so because alibi as a defense is generally disfavored by the Court, especially
when accused has no other witness to bolster his claim.

Proceeding: Presentation of witness by defendant

Date: October 19, 2016
Presided by: Hon. Leopoldo E. Baraquia
People vs Evangelita
In the present case, the accused was charged of:
Art. 315. Swindling (estafa). Any person who shall defraud another
With unfaithfulness or abuse of confidence, namely:
(a) By altering the substance, quantity, or quality or anything of value which the offender shall deliver by virtue
of an obligation to do so, even though such obligation be based on an immoral or illegal consideration.

In this case, the accused presented his defense by way of documentary evidence. The accused
alleged that the subpoena issued as to her, indicated erroneous address and middle name. In that regard,
due process was not accorded to her. Thereafter, counsel for accused asked for reinvestigation.
Moreover, the accused presented pieces of evidence that would show that she was only a real
estate agent and should not be held responsible. Instead, her principal should be the one responsible.

Proceeding: Presentation of witness by prosecution

Date: October 19, 2016
Presided by: Hon. Leopoldo E. Baraquia
People vs. Puno
This particular case concerns a violation of The Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002.
The following provisions are the specific offenses charged against the accused.
Section 11. Possession of Dangerous Drugs. - The penalty of life imprisonment to death and a fine ranging from
Five hundred thousand pesos (P500,000.00) to Ten million pesos (P10,000,000.00) shall be imposed upon any
person, who, unless authorized by law, shall possess any dangerous drug depending on the quantity thereof
Section 15. Use of Dangerous Drugs. A person apprehended or arrested, who is found to be
positive
for use of any dangerous drug, after a confirmatory test, shall be imposed a penalty of a minimum of six (6)
months rehabilitation in a government center for the first offense, subject to the provisions of Article VIII of this
Act. If apprehended using any dangerous drug for the second time, he/she shall suffer the penalty of
imprisonment ranging from six (6) years and one (1) day to twelve (12) years and a fine ranging from Fifty
thousand pesos (P50,000.00) to Two hundred thousand pesos (P200,000.00): Provided, That this Section shall
not be applicable where the person tested is also found to have in his/her possession such quantity of any
dangerous drug provided for under Section 11 of this Act, in which case the provisions stated therein
shall apply.

The accused was charged of use and illegal possession of dangerous drugs. The penalty
imposable for these offenses exceeds 6 yrs. In such case, prosecution availed not of Judicial Affidavit
Rule.
The prosecution presented the testimony of an officer and tried to establish that even the
officer failed to mark and take photographs of dangerous drugs seized as evidence, nonetheless, where
the evidentiary value thereof is preserved, such evidence may still be used for prosecution.
In the present case, the records do not show that the procedural requirement under section 21
of The Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002, with respect to the custody and disposition of
confiscated drugs were followed. No physical inventory and photographs were taken. The court said,
on that score alone, the case for the prosecution fails, absent a plausible explanation to justify failure to
comply with the requirements.

Proceeding: Presentation of witness by prosecution

Date: October 19, 2016
Presided by: Hon. Leopoldo E. Baraquia

People vs Samala
The accused was charged of violation under Revised Penal Code, namely, Art. 308. Who are
liable for theft. Theft is committed by any person who, with intent to gain but without violence
against or intimidation of persons nor force upon things, shall take personal property of another
without the latter's consent.
Under the Rules, the exact value of the thing stolen should be proved so that the it would be
utilized as basis for awarding money value in favor of the movant.
The prosecution in this case presented a receipt as evidence that would show the exact value of
thing stolen. The prosecution alleged that the thing stolen amounted to P 16,000.
The Court emphasized that without such proof only reasonable value of thing stolen could be
given in favor of the plaintiff, citing the case of Francisco v. People, which declared guidelines in
determining reasonable value of the property unlawfully taken.

Proceeding: Motions
Date: October 19, 2016
Presided by: Hon. Leopoldo E. Baraquia
People vs Evangelita
Motion for Reinvestigation
In the instant case, the accused was charged of the following provision:
Art. 315. Swindling (estafa). Any person who shall defraud another
With unfaithfulness or abuse of confidence, namely:
(a) By altering the substance, quantity, or quality or anything of value which the offender shall deliver by virtue
of an obligation to do so, even though such obligation be based on an immoral or illegal consideration.

The accused averred that the subpoena was sent to another address, that she was not informed
of the case. She further claimed that only upon issuance of warrant of arrest that she was made aware of
the case against her. In connection with the point previously mentioned, the counsel for the accused
asked for reinvestigation, and further asked that the accused be allowed to present evidence before the
prosecutor.
Hon. Leopoldo E. Baraquia suggested to proceed for arraignment since there is a potential for
refiling of the case.