MEMORANDUM

for the Prosecution

Submitted by:

Chezanie Chelle L. Punongbayan

Submitted to:

Atty. Jane G. Baguio-Verdida

 Republic of the Philippines
REGIONAL TRIAL COURT OF LANAO DEL NORTE
12th Judicial Region
BRANCH 01
Iligan City

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES,

Plaintiff,

CRIM. CASE NO. 13755

-versus- For: Violation of Section 11
Art. II of RA 9165

JUAN DELA CRUZ

Accused,:
x-------------------------------------------------x

MEMORANDUM FOR THE ACCUSED

The accused, JUAN DELA CRUZ, though the undersigned counsel, unto this
Honorable Court most respectfully submit and present this Memorandum in the
above-titled case and aver that:

FACTS OF THE CASE

The Information read as follows:

“That on or about May 1. 2008, in the City of Iligan,

Philippines, and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the
said accused, without authority of law, did then and there willfully,
unlawfully and feloniously have in his possession, custody and
control nine (9) plastic sachet of Methamphetamine Hydrochloride
weighing more or less 10.25 grams locally known as ‘Shabu’.

CONTRARY to and in VIOLATION of Section 11 Article II of

Republic Act 9165.”

The Joint Affidavit of SP02 Diosdado L. Cabahug, SP02 Edgardo

A. Englatiera and NUP Carlito M. Ong states:
 “That when we reached the place, the raiding team entered
inside the house of Juan dela Cruz at the second floor of the house
were the room occupied by the aforementioned suspects. However
Pedro dela Cruz had noticed the presence of the raiding team and
immediately he was able to sneak out at the back door of the house
and run away to elude arrest leaving behind his companion
identified as Juan dela Cruz, the owner of the house, who was at
that time doing repacking of Methamphetamine Hydrochloride or
‘Shabu’ and we were able to recover nine (9) plastic sachet of
suspected Methamphetamine Hydrochloride or ‘Shabu’ weighing
more or less 10.25grams . . . .”

ISSUES

I. WHETHER OR NOT THE SEARCH AND SEIZURE CONDUCTED BY THE

PDEA IS LEGAL;

II. WHETHER OR NOT THE SEIZED 9 NINE SACHETS OF SHABU AND

OTHER PARAPHERNALIA ARE ADMISSIBLE IN EVIDENCE AGAINST THE
ACCUSED.

DISCUSSION AND ARGUMENTS

I. The PDEA agents had committed an illegal search and seizure.

The right against unreasonable searches and seizures is secured by Section 2,

Article III of the Constitution. However, Law and jurisprudence have laid down the
instances when a warrantless search is valid. These are:

1. Warrantless search incidental to a lawful arrest recognized under Section

12 [now Section 13], Rule 126 of the Rules of Court and by prevailing
jurisprudence;

2. Seizure of evidence in "plain view," ;

3. Search of a moving vehicle. Highly regulated by the government, the

vehicle's inherent mobility reduces expectation of privacy especially when
its transit in public thoroughfares furnishes a highly reasonable suspicion
amounting to probable cause that the occupant committed a criminal
activity;
 4. Consented warrantless search;

5. Customs search;

6. Stop and Frisk; and

7. Exigent and Emergency Circumstances.

The PDEA agents had a Warrant of Arrest when they conducted their
operation. The said warrant was for a certain Felipe dela Cruz for violation of
Section 5 of RA 9615 and not the accused. The first instance of a valid warrantless
search cannot be applied here because the target of the warrant is not the same
person tried in this case. It is a warrant of arrest for another person as admitted by
1
one of the prosecution’s witness, SP02 Diosdado Cabahug.

The search was illegal from the start because when they were already inside
the house of the subject of the warrant, they found out that their target was not
2
already there and yet they continue to search the house. They should have
pursued the target of their mission first instead of continuing the illegal and
unreasonable search.

Also, the PDEA committed another blunder because they had already
conducted the illegal search and upon finding drug paraphernalia on the floor of the
house that’s only the time that they frisked one the suspects they caught and found
3
the nine (9) sachets of ‘shabu’ in his pocket. What they should have done is upon
arresting him, they should have frisked him first for illegal weapons, drugs, etc.
before conducting the search.
.
II. The evidence against the accused is inadmissible against him.

The 1987 Constitution states that a search and consequent seizure must be
carried out with a judicial warrant; otherwise, it becomes unreasonable and any
evidence obtained therefrom shall be inadmissible for any purpose in any
proceeding. The search and seizure conducted by the PDEA in this case is without
a valid warrant and the admissibility of the confiscated drugs can be question on the
ground that it was the fruit of the poisonous tree,

According to Chief Justice Narvasa in the case of People vs. Alicando,

December 12, 1995, “We have not only constitutionalized the Miranda warnings in
our jurisdiction. We have also adopted the libertarian exclusionary rule known as
the "fruit of the poisonous tree," a phrase minted by Mr. Justice Felix Frankfurter in
the celebrated case of Nardone v. United States. According to this rule, once the
primary source (the "tree") is shown to have been unlawfully obtained,
any secondary or derivative evidence (the " fruit " ) derived from it is also
inadmissible. Stated otherwise, illegally seized evidence is obtained as a direct
result of the illegal act, whereas the "fruit of the poisonous tree" is the indirect
result of the same illegal act. The "fruit of the poisonous tree" is at least once
removed from the illegally seized evidence, but it is equally inadmissible. The rule is
based on the principle that evidence illegally obtained by the State should not be
used to gain other evidence because the originally illegally obtained evidence taints
all evidence subsequently obtained.”

As a consequence of the illegal search, the things seized on the occasion

thereof are inadmissible in evidence under the exclusionary rule. They are regarded
as having been obtained from a polluted source, the “fruit of a poisonous tree.”
However, the prohibited drugs seized cannot be returned to their owners
notwithstanding the illegality of their seizure. Thus, the shabu seized by the PDEA,
which cannot legally be possessed by the accused under the law, can and must be
retained by the government to be disposed of in accordance with law.

PRAYER

WHEREFORE, in view of all the foregoing, it is respectfully prayed of this

Honorable Court that the accused be ACQUITED of the case against him.

Respectfully submitted.
Iligan City, August 24, 2012.

CHEZANIE CHELLE L. PUNONGBAYAN

Counsel for the Accused
Iligan City