Republic of the Philippines

Regional Trial Court

12th Judicial Region
Branch 1, Iligan City

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES,

Plaintiff,

-versus- Criminal Case No. 12345

Violation of R.A. 9165
(Comprehensive Dangerous
Drugs Act)

BRUCE WAYNE,
Accused.

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

MEMORANDUM FOR THE ACCUSED

COMES NOW the Accused in the above-entitled case, by the undersigned

counsel, unto this Honorable Court, most respectfully submits the following

memorandum.

STATEMENT OF THE FACTS OF THE CASE

On April 20, 2019 at 12:50am, along Miguel Sheker Street, San Miguel, Iligan

City, accused BRUCE WAYNE y TOMAS, 25 years old, single, and having residence at

0006 Miguel Sheker Street, San Miguel, Iligan City was arrested for violation of Sec. 13,

in relation to Sec. 12, Article II of R.A. 9165 (or The Comprehensive Drugs Act of

2002).

Page 1 of 4
 Prior to the arrest of Accused, the arresting officers, members of the Philippine

National Police were conducting routine patrol and anti-drugs campaign within the AOR

(Area of Responsibility) assigned to them along Miguel Sheker Street, San Miguel,

Iligan, to increase police visibility along the area and abate all forms of criminality and

thereafter arrest and/or apprehend criminals/unlawful persons.

At around 12:30am, on said date, Accused was gathered with three (3) neighbors

of his behind an old Nara Tree to smoke cigarettes and to hang out. Accused admits that

he and his neighbors regularly smoke cigarettes outside at midnight and thereafter go to

their homes to play a videogame called Dota 2, to which the four (4) of them participated.

However, during said date, one of his neighbors suddenly pulled out an improvised

homemade pipe made from tin foil, and a sachet of marijuana leaves.

Accused was then distraught in the presence of the illegal dangerous drugs. He

told his neighbors that he wanted go home immediately but his neighbors jokingly

threatened to beat him up if he would go home immediately and told him not to go home

and to wait for them to finish smoking said marijuana leaves and told the accused that it

was safe because it was already midnight and there were no more police in the area.

Accused then hesitantly agreed. Thereafter at around 12:50am, on the same date, unaware

to the group, police officers were in the area patrolling, the three (3) neighbors of the

accused saw the police officers and threw the improvised pipe at BRUCE WAYNE

where the said accused caught them in his arms, still unaware of the presence of the

police officers and dumfounded as to why his neighbors hurriedly ran away leaving him

behind and suddenly throwing the makeshift pipe at him. Then as the accused turned

around, the arresting officers immediately placed him under arrest.

Accused was calm when he was arrested because he knew he was innocent and he

did not use or possess any dangerous drugs.

Page 2 of 4
 ISSUES OF THE CASE

The memorandum will discuss the following issues:

Whether or not ACCUSED has violated R.A. 9165 (The Comprehensive

Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002).

ARGUMENTS AND DISCUSSIONS

ACCUSED did not violated R.A. 9165 (The Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs

Act of 2002)

The following elements must be established to convict an accused of illegal

possession of a prohibited drug under Section 11, 29 Paragraph 2 (3), Article II of

R.A. 9165: (1) the accused was in possession of an item or an object identified to be a

prohibited or regulated drug; (2) such possession is not authorized by law; and (3) the

accused was freely and consciously aware of being in possession of the drug.

In the present case, accused BRUCE WAYNE was not freely and consciously

aware of being in possession of the drug. As a matter of fact, he objected to being in

the presence when one of his neighbors pulled out an improvised pipe and a sachet of

marijuana leaves, if he were not threated to be beaten by his companions. In People v.

Sy1, it was stated that:

“Mere possession of a regulated drug per se constitutes prima facie evidence of

knowledge or animus possidendi sufficient to convict an accused absent a satisfactory

explanation of such possession; the onus probandi is shifted to the accused, to explain the

absence of knowledge or animus possidendi.”

1
People v. Sy, G.R. No. 182178, August 15, 2011

Page 3 of 4
 Accused presented a satisfactory explanation of such possession, that the

improvised pipe and sachet of marijuana leaves was thrown at him when his neighbors

saw the arresting officers approaching, and that at the moment he caught the said pipe

and sachet, he was immediately placed under arrest. Further, there is a copy of a CCTV

footage where it shows accused with his neighbors and that such footage corroborates

with the explanation of the accused and that such is clear and convincing evidence.

Thus, valuable consideration must be given on the circumstance of accused

BRUCE WAYNE, and he did not violate Section 11 of Article II of R.A. 9165.

PRAYER

WHEREFORE, in view of the foregoing premises, it is most respectfully prayed

of this Honorable Court that herein Accused be ACQUITTED of the crimes charged.

Other reliefs, just and equitable under the premises, are likewise prayed for.

RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED.

City of Iligan, Philippines, April 23, 2019.

CLARK KENT
Counsel for Accused
Building X, Iligan City
Copy furnished:

IBRAHIM LYNDON A. RAZUMAN

Public Prosecutor
Office of the City Prosecutor

Page 4 of 4