This gist is formed from the arrest affidavit submitted by the apprehending team:
1. A supposed buy bust operation was conducted to a suspected peddler of shabu at a town plaza on valentines day.
2. The PNP performed a test buy using an asset as 'posseur' to make the purchase from the said pusher using a marked 500 peso bill.
3. After the alleged exchange of hands, the asset showed proof of the evidence bought to the team leader and said that the marked money had been received by the peddler.
4. Upon receiving information of the said posseur, the PNP Team moved in for the arrest of the peddler, where he and his accomplice were with the crowd of people celebrating the town festivities of valentine's day.
5. Upon seeing, the Police Officers approaching them, the two alleged pushers sped off on their motorcycle to escape the authorities.
6. A different team of PNP Officers, had set-up a checkpoint station at one area of the three exit routes of the plaza, where the escaping peddlers riding on tandem coincidentally passed through. They were forced to stop and be searched, and obtained were the shabu items and paraphernalias from the two persons.
7. They were then arrested and brought to the station for booking. The police then called for a brgy chairman and his kagawad to sign over the inventoried items of the evidences obtained.
8. A formal complaint was charged for violations of Sec. 5, 11. 12 and 15 of RA 9165 to the suspects and detained at the BJMP. An arraignment set with a plea of not guilty was moved.
9. The complaint information was submitted to the office of the provincial prosecutor tainted with erasures and corrections, most especially on the subtext where the evidences were enumerated, and duly countersigned by the officers who executed the affidavits.
10. Upon perusal of the erasures and corrections done by them, it appeared that the name of the alleged pusher was stricken out with 'white correction fluid' to replace it with that of the supposed 'asset'.
11. Perusing further, it then showed that the replacement correction done was to assign one (1) sachet of 'shabu' from the evidences obtained to the supposed asset.
12. Putting suspicion at the correction, it was then ascertained by comparing the inventoried items during the apprehension (signed by those brgy officials) to establish, that there were 12 items of evidences (including paraphernalias, etc) taken from the (2) apprehended suspects that day. However, on the arrest affidavit submitted as part of the complaint information, there were now (3) personalities owing to the 12 evidences obtained. The addition, in the person of the so-called 'asset', had been manifested to obtain from him, one (1) item in the form of a plastic sachet of 'shabu'.
Questions raised:
A. why the erasures?
B. why replace the pushers name and replace his for the asset in conjunction to the single item obtained?
C. were they asked by the prosecutor at the time of the filing of charges, "o, kung buy-bust to, asan ang binili nang asset nyo kapalit nitong marked money na tinanggap nya?"
D. if they did forget to include the asset in the inventory, where is the 13th item of the find to form part of the evidences obtained from the buy bust operation?
E. could it be a probability then, that there was no buy bust operation, and that the evidences were modified, circumvented, or customized to fit a buy-bust scenario?
F. can the court rely on an affidavit tainted with erasures and placed into question?
This August, a hearing is set for the presentation of evidences.
The accused is moving to file a motion for bail using the discrepancies above cited for insufficient proof to establish that a buy-bust operation had indeed taken place?
Issue to Counsel:
- what would be the arguments or grounds used to contain the appeal for bail?
Can anyone shed, legal light on this query? God bless you.
Home
