Republic of the Philippines

REGIONAL TRIAL COURT

7th Judicial Region

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES,

Plaintiff, CRIM CASE NOS.
DU- 29080 & DU-
29081

-versus- FOR: VIOLATION OF

SECS. 5 & 11, ART
II OF RA 9165
Accused.
x---------------------------------------------------/

APPLICATION FOR BAIL

ACCUSED, by counsel and to this Honorable Court,

most respectfully states, to wit:

1. Accused is in custody of this Honorable Court for the

alleged Violation of Secs. 5 & 11, Art II, of RA 9165 or of
the Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002.

2. No bail has been recommended by the prosecution for

the accuseds temporary liberty for the reason that the
offense charged is punishable by life imprisonment to
death and on the prosecutions assumption that the
evidence of guilt against herein accused is strong.

3. Section 13, Article III of the 1987 Constitution provides

that All persons, except those charged with offenses
punishable by reclusion perpetua when evidence of guilt
is strong, shall, before conviction, be bailable by
sufficient sureties, or be released on recognizance as
may be provided by law.

4. Thus, the grant or denial of an application for bail is,

therefore, dependent on whether the evidence of guilt is
strong, which the lower court should determine in a
hearing called for the purpose.

5. In addition, the burden of showing that evidence of guilt

against the herein accused is strong lies on the
prosecution, and unless this fact is satisfactorily shown in
a hearing conducted for such purpose, the accused
 may be bailed at the courts discretion. Section 8, Rule
114 of the Revised Rules on Criminal Procedure explicitly
states, to wit:

SEC. 8. Burden of proof in bail application.

At the hearing of an application for bail filed
by a person who is in custody for the
commission of an offense punishable by
death, reclusion perpetua, or life
imprisonment, the prosecution has the
burden of showing that evidence of guilt
is strong.xxx

6. Accused humbly submits that the prosecutions evidence

of guilt against him is weak. Granting without admitting
that there is evidence implicating him to the crime
charged, such evidence is inadmissible considering that
his arrest is illegal, there were irregularities in the alleged
buy- bust operation and the non-compliance with the
requirements of Section 21, RA 9165, or the chain of
custody rule.

the arrest is irregular and illegal

7. In the Certificate of Inventory in relation to the alleged

arrest of the accused, the latter was made to sign the said
document together with the media representative and an
elected official.

8. However, it should be noted that during that time, the

accused was already arrested or his liberty was already
constrained. As such, he was already under custodial
investigation.

9. It is a requirement, that when a person is under custodial

investigation, he could not be compelled to perform any
incriminating acts or say any incriminating statements
without the assistance of counsel. There was no showing
that the accused was assisted with counsel during the
time he signed the certificate of inventory, hence, any
statements therein are inadmissible for being a fruit of
poisonous tree.

10. In the spot report also with regards to the arrest of the
accused wherein it made reference to the blotter, it only
shows the incident that had happened after the arrest of
the accused. The blotter does not contain entries prior to
 the arrest of the accused particularly on the briefing of the
arresting officers, hence, there is already a doubt if indeed
there was a briefing regarding their plan to conduct a buy-
bust operation against the accused.

non- compliance of the chain of

custody requirements

11. The chain of custody requirement provided under

Paragraph 1, Section 21 of RA 9165 provides that:

Section 21. Custody and Disposition of

Confiscated, Seized, and/or Surrendered Dangerous
Drugs, Plant Sources of Dangerous Drugs, Controlled
Precursors and Essential Chemicals,
Instruments/Paraphernalia and/or Laboratory
Equipment.

(1)The apprehending team having initial custody and control of

the drugs shall, immediately after seizure and confiscation,
physically inventory and photograph the same in the
presence of the accused or the person/s from whom such
items were confiscated and/or seized, or his/her
representative or counsel, a representative from the media
and the Department of Justice (DOJ), and any elected public
official who shall be required to sign the copies of the
inventory and be given a copy thereof;

xxx

12. The law is specific as the marking and inventory of the

seized illegal drugs should be made at the place of arrest.
The purpose of this law is to preserve the integrity and
evidentiary value of the items.

13. Unfortunately, the police officers failed to comply with

the rules as the marking and inventory were made at the
police station and not at the place of arrest. The only
reason given by the police officers as to why the inventory
was conducted at the police station was for security
reason without even detailing the threats that the police
encountered which would justify their act.

14. Worse, it was not even stated in the spot report that
since the bystanders were making disorder during the
arrest of the accused, which prompted the arresting
 officers to conduct the marking and inventory in the police
station and not in the place of arrest.

15. In fact, none of the bystanders who allegedly made a

disorder behavior which put the safety of the arresting
officers at risk was arrested for direct assault.
16. If this Honorable Court permits, then the counsel for the
accused shall further expound the matter in the hearing
to be conducted for the purpose. The accused firmly
believes that it is only through such hearing that the
weakness of the evidence of the prosecution may be
distinctly shown, assuming that any such evidence exists.

PRAYER

WHEREFORE, invoking the accuseds constitutional

rights to post bail and to be presumed innocent,
accused most respectfully prays to be allowed to post bail
after hearing to be conducted for the purpose of determining
the strength or weakness of the prosecutions evidence.
All other reliefs just and equitable under the foregoing
premises are likewise prayed for.
Respectfully submitted. March 10, 2017. Cebu City,
Philippines.

REQUEST / NOTICE OF HEARING / PROOF OF SERVICE

Greetings! Please set this application for bail for

hearing on Friday, March 17, 2017 at 9:00 oclock in the
morning, with or without the presence of counsel and further
argument. Thank you.

The Handling Prosecutor shall kindly take notice. Thank

you.