Direct Examination:

PROSECUTORS: Viodor, Medrano, Peralta, Laureto, Relado, Astrologo and

Dulay
Q: Mr. witness, on November 24, 2011 at around 11:30 oclock in the
evening, where were you at that time?
A: I was at Carmen Ville, Brgy. Casisang, Malaybalay City, together with
SPO1 PETER MENDOZA, SPO1 ALBERT D. DELROSARIO AND SPO1
MICHAEL S. VINSON, sir.
Q: Why were you there in that place?
A: Because we were conducting Mobile Surveillance Operation against
Motorcycle Thieves.
Q: While you were conducting Mobile Surveillance Operation in said place,
what happened next?
A: On November 25, 2011 at around 12:30am, while we were about to
exit to Villa Azura Subdivision along the corner of National Highway going
to Km 4 of the said barangay, we saw two(2) persons disembarked from a
single XRM color red from south direction who immediately proceeded to
seat on the concrete barrier beside the road upon SENSING our vehicle.
Q: And, what transpired next after that?
A: Because of the accused unusual or suspicious act that they immediately
disembarked from the said motor cycle and proceeded to said concrete
barrier upon SENSING our vehicle, we parked our vehicle beside the said
motor cycle.
Q: Mr. Witness, why do consider such acts of the accused unusual or
suspicious?
A: considering the time that it was happened at 12:30 am and based also
in our experienced as law enforcers, we believe that there was probable
cause that they were doing or hiding something unlawful.
Q: After you parked your vehicle beside their motorcycle, what transpired
next after that?
A: We found out that the plate number attached to said motorcycle was
already dilapidated.
Q: Upon finding that the said plate number was already dilapidated, what
did you do?
A: We immediately called their attention, introduced ourselves as police
officers of Malaybalay City police Station and asked their identifications and
the documents of said motorcycle.
Q: What was the accuseds reply when you made such inquiry?
A: The accused introduced themselves as FREDDIE REX MARINAY
OLORVIDA AND CRISPEN SAJULGA BASAHAN.
Q: What motorcycle document they presented to you, if any?
A: They didnt present any motorcycle document, sir.
Q: Upon failure of the accused to present any motorcycle document, what
did you do?
A: I went to the said motorcycle, sir, to verify its chassis number.
Q: When you went to the said motorcycle to verify its chassis number,
what happened next?
A: When I was about to verify the chassis and engine number of said
vehicle, I saw one pouch hanging on the accelerator cable, sir.
Q: Upon seeing the said pouch, what did you do to it if any?
A: Because of SUSPICIOUS acts of the accused, as I already mentioned
and explained earlier, that made us believed that they were doing or hiding
something unlawful, I opened the said pouch, sir.
Q: When you opened the said pouch, what did you find if any?
A: I found three pieces heat-sealed transparent plastic sachet containing
white crystalline substance believed to be shabu with the total weight of
0.3403 grams, sir.
Q: What happened thereafter?
A: We immediately placed the accused under arrest.
Q: While you were arresting the accused, what did you do as a matter of
procedure, what did you tell them?
A: We informed them of their constitutional rights and the nature of their
offense, sir.
Q: So, after that, where did you bring the accused?
A: We immediately brought them to Malaybalay City Police Station together
with confiscated pieces of evidence for proper disposition.
Q: You said that you found three pieces heat-sealed transparent plastic
sachet containing white crystalline substance believed to be shabu, would
you be able to identify the plastic sachet if you will be shown to you?
A: Yes, sir.
Q: What markings did you place if any?
A: I put as Ex-1 mrh, Ex-2 mrh, and Ex-3 mrh respectively, sir.
Q: What does mrh mean?
A: Melchor R. Hinlo, sir.
Q: Mr. Witness, I will show a document marked as Exhibit A. What can you
say about this document?
A: This is the certification, sir, coming from the office of the PNP Crime
Laboratory, certifying that they received specimens marked with Ex-1 mrh,
Ex-2 mrh, and Ex-3 mrh respectively.
Q: You mean to say that the specimens you confiscated from the accused
were THE SAME specimens received by the PNP Crime Laboratory for the
purpose of determining the presence of dangerous drug?
A: That is exactly what I mean, sir.
Q: Mr. Witness I will show you those items you confiscated from the
accused, could you identify it?
A: Yes, sir.
Q: I will show to you now the three pieces sachet which contained white
crystalline substance marked as Exhibit B, could you please tell us what is
the relationship of these items from those items you recovered from the
accused on which markings were placed?
A: These are the items we recovered from the accused, sir.
Q: After these specimens were brought to your office, what happened to
these specimens?
A: I put the markings and then SPO1 Del Rosario made the inventory of
the property seized from the accused and prepared a letter request for the
laboratory examination.
Q: Why the said markings and inventory were not made in the crime
scene?
A: Considering time that it was happened at around 12:30 am and the
crime scene was not well lighted, it was not advisable to make such
markings and inventory to the said place, sir.
Q: Where was the accused when the time you made such markings and
inventory?
A: He was with us during that time, sir.
Q: Mr. Witness, what do you mean by he was with us during time?
A: What I mean to say, sir, is that the markings and inventory were made
in the PRESENCE of the accused.
Q: Mr. Witness, I have another document that I will show to you marked
as Exhibit C. Could you enlighten this court what is this document?
A: This document is the inventory made by SPO1 Del Rosario with regards
to the items confiscated from the accused, sir.
Q: How do you know that this document is the same inventory document
made by SPO1 Del Rosario?
A: Im certain, sir, that this document is the same inventory document
made by SPO1 Del Rosario because I was there when he executed the
same. Aside from that, this document bears the signature of SPO1 Del
Rosario, my signature and the signature of SPO1 MICHAEL S. VINSON as
seizing officers, sir.
Q: Mr. Witness, I will show you the letter request for the laboratory
examination marked as Exhibit D, do you know if this document was
actually received by the addressee?
A: Yes, sir, because I and PO2 Balacase who submitted the same to the
PNP Crime Laboratory.
Q: What proof that this document was actually received by the addressee?
A: There was a stamp marked of receipt, sir.
Q: Could you please point out where is that stamp marked receipt in this
document?
A: This one, sir (The witness is pointing the portion of the document where
the stamp marked receipt is located).
Q: Mr. witness, Im showing to you another document marked as Exhibit E.
Could you tell this honorable court what is this document all about?
A: This document is a chemistry report submitted to our by ELLEN A
VARIACION-AVANZADO, a Forensic Chemist, showing that the specimens
A-1, A-2 and A-3 marked with Ex-1 mrh, Ex-2 mrh, and Ex-3 mrh
respectively, gave POSITIVE result to the test for the presence of
Methamphetamine hydrochloride (shabu), a dangerous drug, sir.
THAT ALL, YOUR HONOR, FOR THE PROSECUTIONs DIRECT
EXAMINATION TO THE WITNESS.


















It can be gleaned from the foregoing, the seized sachet of shabu was
immediately marked for proper identification and, thereafter, forwarded to
the Crime Laboratory for examination. The Chemistry Report of the
Regional Crime Laboratory Office stated that the specimen submitted by
the apprehending officers indeed bore the marking "Exh A MAG 171200-
01-14" and that the same gave positive result to the tests for the presence
of Methamphetamine Hydrochloride. Forensic Chemical Officer Tria
confirmed on the witness stand that she examined the specimen submitted
by the PDEA and that she was the one who prepared the Chemistry Report
No. D-54-04.
24

It is thus evident that the identity of the corpus delicti has been properly
preserved and established by the prosecution. Besides, the integrity of the
evidence is presumed to be preserved unless there is a showing of bad
faith, ill will, or proof that the evidence has been tampered with. The
appellant in this case has the burden to show that the evidence was
tampered or meddled with to overcome a presumption of regularity in the
handling of exhibits by public officers and a presumption that public
officers properly discharge their duties.
25
Appellant failed to discharge such
burden.