REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES REGIONAL TRIAL COURT FOURTH JUDICIAL REGION BRANCH 87 ROSARIO, BATANGAS THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff,
CRIM CASE No.________
-versus-
-for-
___________________________, VIOLATION OF ARTICLE II _______________________ SECTION 5 OF REPUBLIC __________________ ACT 9165 (Comprehensive Accused. Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002) x-----------------------------------------------------------x PETITION FOR BAIL Accused __________________, by counsel, most respectfully petition the Honorable Court to grant him bail, upon these considerations: 1.Accused _______________ is charged, together with a certain _________________ of Violation of Article II, Section 5 of Republic Act 9165 (Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002) in an Amended Information, dated October 23, 2012 and no bail was recommended for their provisional liberty. 2. The Amended Information is a result of the recommendation made by the Public Prosecutor Peter A. Beloso, based on a Resolution he rendered, dated October 23, 2012 on the Preliminary Investigation, finding probable cause against accused ____________________ for Violation of Article II, Section 5 of Republic Act 9165, and does not recommend bail for his provisional liberty.
3. Accused _____________________ was arrested on March 5, 2013, by virtue of a warrant of arrest issued by the Honorable Court and is presently detained at the Padre Garcia Police Station. 4. Though the Public Prosecutor found probable cause against accused ________________, it is submitted that the evidence against him is not strong and therefore he may be granted bail. 5. Section 13, Article III of the 1987 Philippine Constitution provides: “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. The right to bail shall not be impaired even when the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus is suspended, excessive bail shall not be required.” 6. Section 7, Rule 114 of the Revised Rules of Court, likewise provides: “Capital offense or an offense punishable by reclusion perpetua or life imprisonment, not bailable.-No person charged with a capital offense, or an offense punishable by reclusion perpetua or life imprisonment, when evidence of guilt is strong, shall be admitted to bail regardless of the stage of the criminal prosecution.” 7. It is submitted that the evidence of the prosecution in support of the charge against herein accused ______________ is not strong as to deny his constitutional and statutory right to bail. This is clearly shown by the following considerations: a.Section 5, Article II of Republic Act 9165 (Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002) provides: “Sale, Trading, Administration, Dispensation, Delivery, Distribution and transportation of Dangerous Drugs and/or Controlled Precursors and Essential Chemicals- The penalty of life imprisonment to death and a fine ranging from Five hundred thousand pesos (P500,000.00) to Ten million pesos (P10,000,000.00) shall be imposed upon any person, who, unless authorized by law, shall sell, trade, administer, dispense, diliver, give away to another, distribute dispatch in transit or transport any dangerous drugs,
including any and all species of opium poppy regardless of the quantity and purity involved, or shall act as a broker in any such transactions XXX” b. It is apparent from the foregoing paragraph, that in order for an accused to be convicted under Section 5, he must have either: sold, traded, administered, dispensed, delivered, gave away, distributed or transported dangerous drugs and/or controlled precursors and essential chemicals; or must have acted as a broker in any such transactions; and the same must be proven beyond reasonable doubt based on evidence. c. None of the object evidence taken after the buy-bust operation conducted by the operatives of the Padre Garcia Police on August 19, 2012 was the product of a sale, trade, administation, dispensation, distribution or transportation done or made by accused ______________________. d. The only evidence linking accused _____________________ to the instant case are the statements made by the operatives of Padre Garcia Police that he was in conspiracy with accused ____________________ in selling the shabu, because it was him who handed to the latter the heat-sealed transparent plastic sachet, containing methamphetamine hydrochloride, which in turn was sold to the poseur buyer. e. Statements like this given by the operatives themselves should be treated with caution and must be considered with outmost care. They must not be given the simple convenience of alleging conspiracy. The existence of conspiracy, just like the crime itself must be proven beyond reasonable doubt. f. Accused ______________ do not deny being at the house of ____________________ when the buy-bust operation was conducted on August 19, 2012. It is a situation of being “at the wrong place at the wrong
time.” But mere presence at the premises where the buy-bust operation was conducted does not make one automatically a conspirator. If indeed he participated as stated by the operatives, he could have been arrested together with accused ___________________. g.
The
statements
made
by
the
operatives
that
accused
__________________ handed accused ___________________ the heatsealed plastic containing shabu and sold to the poseur buyer, which somehow gives the situation a color of conspiracy, defies logic and contrary to ordinary course of things which is readily observable. One question always
stands
out:
Why
is
there
a
need
for
accused
______________________ to summon accused _______________ and require from the latter a heat-sealed plastic sachet containing the shabu, when according to the operatives themselves they frisked the former after he was arrested and the search yielded one transparent plastic sachet containing white crystalline substance, suspected to be shabu and three pieces transparent plastic sachet (tea bag) suspected to be containing dried leaves of marijuana?
There
is
no
logical
need
or
reason
for
accused
_________________ to require from accused ____________________ the heat-sealed plastic sachet containing shabu because the former have with him available quantity as alleged by the operatives and evidenced by the object evidence seized from the body of _______________________ after the buy-bust operation. h. Unless the prosecution proves that the evidence of guilt against accused ______________________ is strong, accused is entitled to right to bail enshrined and guaranteed by our statutes and Constitution. WHEREFORE, premises considered, it is most respectfully prayed of this
Honorable
Court
to
grant
herein
accused-movant
______________________ bail for his provisional liberty and to fix the same in an amount in cash or surety as it may deemed suffient.
Batangas City for Rosario, Batangas, March 8, 2013. RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED: MANALO & CLEMENO LAW OFFICES Counsel for Accused Raymund Perez 1st Flr. N. Sangalang Bldg. C. Tirona St., Batangas City By:
RICARDO B. MANALO II Roll No. 43030 IBP No. 873272 Dec 28, 2012 PTR No. 1833670 Jan. 2, 2013 Batangas City MCLE Exemption No. III-000657 December 16, 2009 The Branch Clerk of Court Regional Trial Court Branch 87 Pros. Peter A. Beloso Office of the Provincial Prosecutor Rosario, Batangas GREETINGS: Please be notified that the foregoing Petition for Bail will be submitted by the undersigned on March 14, 2013 at 2:00 o’clock in the afternoon, or as soon thereafter as counsel and matter may be heard. March 8, 2013. RICARDO B. MANALO II Copy furnished:
Pros. PETER A BELOSO Office of the Provincial Prosecutor Rosario, Batangas
