REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES

FOURTH JUDICIAL REGION

REGIONAL TRIAL COURT
BRANCH 7-BATANGAS CITY

THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES,

Plaintiff, Criminal Case Nos. 12775

- versus - - for -

ENRICO REYES y Munoz, Violation of Secs. 11, par. 3 Art. II,

Accused. of R.A. No. 9165

x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x

MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE

DEMURRER TO EVIDENCE

COMES NOW, the undersigned counsel de oficio for accused and unto this
Honorable Court, most respectfully states:

That on March 11, 2010, the Public Attorney’s Office received a copy of the
Order issued by the Honorable Court admitting Exhibits “A” to “E”, with their respective
sub-markings which were formally offered by the prosecution, and hence, the latter is
now considered to have rested its case;

That after careful evaluation of the evidence presented by the Prosecution, the
defense firmly believes that they are not sufficient to establish the guilt of the accused
beyond reasonable doubt based on the following arguments;

1.) The Evidence Allegedly Taken from the Accused are Inadmissible;

In view of the submission to the Honorable Court by the defense of the Certified
Copy of the Order of the Regional Trial Court, Branch 84 quashing the Search Warrant
issued against Alberto Magnaye that lead to the Dismissal of the case against said
person and the accused, the prosecution had confirmed the admission of such fact
during the Pre-Trial dated April 14, 2004.

Consequently, by reason of the quashal of the said warrant, all evidence taken by
reason of the alleged search are INADMISSIBLE against the accused.

2.) Gross Violation of the Provisions of R.A. No. 9165 and its Implementing
Rules;

It must be emphasized that according to the police officers, it was a planned

operation, but records would show there are No Pre-Operational Report, Pictures of
the Evidence taken at the scene of the crime, Drug Test and Medical Check-up of
the accused, which are all vital documents to ensure the integrity of the operation.
Likewise, there are No Separate Affidavits of Arrest by each of the police officers
involved and Spot Report.

1
 Moreover, there were NO representatives from the Department of Justice
and Media during the entire operation.

Much worse, based on the Formal Offer of Evidence, there was No Inventory
of the alleged confiscated illegal drug.

The Supreme Court made a concrete ruling on this point that when the
performance of police officers’ duties was tainted with irregularities, such presumption of
regularity is effectively destroyed. (People vs. Mark Dela Cruz, GR No. 181545,
October 8, 2008)

3.) No Concrete Proof that Accused was Caught in the Act of Using Shabu
which Allegedly became the Basis of Further Search on his Person;

To justify the police officer’s search on the person of the accused, he claimed that
he along with other suspects were caught in the act of using shabu. However, it is clear
on record that accused, or even other suspects, were NOT subjected to drug test to
confirm their serious allegation.

Absence of such standard operating procedure as required by law creates doubt

as to the truth of their claim which they used as their convenient basis to allegedly
conduct further search on the person of the accused.

4.) Absence of Police Blotter.

Surprisingly, despite the claim of the police officer involved, that they were
allegedly on duty when they served the search warrant on the house of Alberto
Magnaye, and after their operation they brought the suspects to their police station, NO
Police Blotter was presented and formally offered by the people to bolster the charge
against the accused. Absence of said document to prove the basic standard operating
procedure could entertain serious misgivings that a legitimate operation actually took
place and the presumption of regularity in the conduct of official duty cannot be taken in
their favor.

In sum, the prosecution’s evidence against the accused being insufficient,

the prosecution failed to prove the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt.

WHEREFORE, premises considered, it is most respectfully prayed of this

Honorable Court that the undersigned counsel be granted leave of court to file demurrer
to evidence within ten (10) days from receipt of the Order granting this Motion, or within
a reasonable time the Honorable Court may deem just and appropriate under the
circumstances to discuss fully his arguments.

Batangas City, March 16, 2010.

DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE
PUBLIC ATTORNEY’S OFFICE
BATANGAS DISTRICT OFFICE
HALL OF JUSTICE BUILDING
PALLOCAN, BATANGAS CITY
Counsel for the Accused

2
 By:

ARSENIO M. HERNANDEZ, JR.

Public Attorney II
IBP Roll No. 49087
MCLE Compliance No. II-0011720

NOTICE OF HEARING

Fiscal Alexander Sandoval

Office of the Provincial Prosecutor

The Branch Clerk of Court

RTC Branch 7,
Batangas City

G R E E T I N G S:

Please take notice that this Motion will be submitted for hearing on April 5, 2010
at 1:30 o’clock in the afternoon or any other date available to the calendar of this
Honorable Court.

ARSENIO M. HERNANDEZ, JR.

Copy furnished:
Office of the Provincial Prosecutor
Batangas City