Republic of the Philippines

Department of Justice
National Prosecution Service
OFFICE OF THE PROVINCIAL PROSECUTOR
OF LANAO DEL SUR

PSI ROMER G. ENRIQUES, etal,

Complainant,
NPS-RXIV-04-INQ-18B-00036
-versus- FOR: Violation of Section 11,
Art. 2 of R. A. 9165

NPS-RXIV-04-INQ-18B-00037
FOR: Violation of Section 5,
Art. 2 of R. A. 9165

IBRAHIM SABDULLAH DATU-IMAM

aka RANDY,
Respondent.
x----------------------------------------x

COUNTER-AFFIDAVIT

I, IBRAHIM SABDULLAH DATU-IMAM, of legal age, orphan,

single and a resident of Binidayan, Lanao del Sur, after being duly sworn to an
oath in accordance with law, do hereby depose and state that:

1. I am the same respondent in the above-captioned criminal cases pending

before the Honorable Provincial Prosecutor’s Office of Lanao del Sur;

2. At the outset, I am vehemently denying the allegations of the complaining

arresting officers for being fabricated, false and mere bare allegations. The
truth is as stated hereunder:
i. The alleged buy-bust operation leading to my unlawful arrest
was only a frame-up executed at the initiative of Mr. and Mrs.
Radia, also residents of Binidayan, Lanao del Sur;
ii. In the year 2016, I worked as a personal escort of said spouses
who work in Cotabato City;
iii. Although initially employed as a personal escort, the couple even
required me to perform household chores at times;
 iv. To help my siblings sustain our family needs, I tried my level best
to be of good service to them despite their unbecoming treatment
to me;
v. However, after almost five months from my employment with
them, I, with the advice of my siblings, decided to severe such
service and instead worked on my papers to work abroad;
vi. Early January 2018, I came to the rescue of relatives who had
heavy discord with the kins of Mr. and Mrs. Radia in Binidayan,
Lanao del Sur who are their rival in the previous local elections;
vii. Five days after such heated disagreement, Mrs. Radia on her way
came to our place and slapped me several times while
reprimanding me at the top of her voice: “Ino ka pagogop sa mga
taw anan? Da a tadm iyan ah!” (why do you come to the rescue of
those persons? You really are ungrateful!);
viii. More than ten days after the slapping incident, Mrs. Radia came
to our house and asked forgiveness for her immoral act and asked
me to serve them again and accompany them to Cotabato City;
ix. Despite the staunch refusal of my elder siblings, owing to our
financial difficulties, I accepted the offer;
x. On February 21, 2018, I escorted the spouses to Cotabato City and
on the next day, they told me we are going back home;
xi. While in Picong, they told me they will drop me in Malabang,
Lanao del Sur as they have contacted a passenger vehicle going to
Binidayan for me to get important documents in their house and
gave me two thousand four hundred pesos;
xii. When we reached Malabang, a passenger vehicle was indeed
waiting for me and among the passengers was a relative of Mrs.
Radia who is a Barangay Chairman in Binidayan;
xiii. After dropping me, the spouses headed to Lanao del Sur;
xiv. To my surprise, when we reached Binidayan, Lanao del Sur at
around 9: 00 o’clock in the evening, Police officers accosted our
vehicle and forcibly grabbed me out of it and made me drop
facing the ground while handcuffing my hands;
xv. The police officers feignedly searched my body but found
nothing.

3. No buy-bust operation (BBO, for brevity) was actually conducted against

accused. In support of this truthful fact is as follows;
 i. Upon interrogation during the Inquest Proceedings, finding that
no Affidavit of Poseur-Buyer was presented to the Honorable
Office, Chief of Police PSI Romer G. Enriquez confirmed
before Prosecutor Raihana Abubakar and assisting PAO lawyers
Atty. Fatimah Mohammadali and Atty. Mahida Salih that the
supposed Poseur-Buyer is a Civilian Asset whose identity they
opt not to divulge in order not to compromise their future buy-
bust operations;
ii. We are however surprised when we procured a copy of the
Affidavit of Poseur-Buyer presented to the OPP-Lanao del Sur
seeing that the alleged poseur-buyer was PO2 Menor B.
Maamor, openly inconsistent with PSI Enriquez testimony
that the poseur-buyer was a Civilian Asset;
iii. It needs to be emphasized that the Affidavit of Poseur-Buyer was
belatedly produced despite the opportunity they had to execute
and present one to the Prosecutor’s Office before the Inquest
Proceedings on February 24, 2018;
iv. One cannot find a reasonable excuse why in the Judicial Affidavit
Complaint executed by PSI Enriquez, the name of the poseur-
buyer was not specified, if indeed the alleged buy-bust operation
took place.

4. In the Affidavit of Poseur-Buyer, PO2 Menor B. Maamor states in the 7 th

paragraph thereof that accused gave him a one heat sealed transparent
sachet believed to be shabu;

5. PO2 Maamor continues in the 9th paragraph of his Affidavit that PO1
Datumanot M. Sendad received the aforesaid seized item from the
former and not from the accused himself, thus openly rebutting the
authenticity of the entry in the Chain of Custody Form which shows
PO1 Datumanot M. Sendad as the seizing officer;

6. Under the 2014 Revised PNP Manual on Anti-Illegal Drugs Operations and
Investigation, in every negation operation, a “Seizing Officer” shall be
designated who would be responsible for the inventory and initial custody of
all drug and non-drug evidence confiscated during the anti-illegal drugs
operations;

7. Thus, for the successful prosecution of the crime of illegal sale of drugs,
there must be a Chain of Custody Form where the name of PO2 Menor B.
 Maamor appear as the seizing officer because, as per his Affidavit, he had
the initial custody of the alleged one sachet of drug from the accused. Non-
compliance herewith, as it is in this case, places doubt to the integrity and
evidentiary value of such piece of evidence;

8. Further, both the Judicial Affidavit Complaint, Affidavit of Poseur-

Buyer and Accomplishment Report dated February 22, 2018 are replete
of any showing that the pieces of evidence allegedly recovered from
accused were marked nor was there any mention of any instance that
marking was made by anyone of the police officers. Hence, again, doubt
is injected as to their integrity and evidentiary value. These three documents
do not give a clear picture of what really transpired and therefore could not
serve as basis to indict accused of the crimes he is accused of;

9. Corrolarily, the Certificate of Inventory of the alleged seized items do not

bear markings as required under the Revised PNP Manual;

10. In the 6th paragraph of the Judicial Affidavit Complaint executed by PSI
Enriquez, he stated that he acted as the Team Leader of the Buy-Bust
Operation against accused. There is however no indication therein of the
supposed briefing, as required by the Revised PNP Manual,

11. Both the Judicial Affidavit Complaint and Affidavit of Poseur-Buyer

abounds with procedural lapses that should be resolved in favor of the
accused; a layman who should not be deprived of liberty or be placed in the
pain of incarceration at the hands of unscrupulous learned officers who
despite knowledge of the mandated procedures set by law deliberately
disregard them at the cost of other’s life;

12. The Supreme Court has repeatedly pointed out in a long line of cases
{ Rodis vs. Sandiganbayan, 166 SCRA 6198 (1988) } that the purpose of a
preliminary investigation or a previous inquiry of some kind, before an
accused is placed on trial, is to secure the innocent against hasty, malicious
and oppressive prosecution and to protect him from an open and public
accusation of a crime, from the trouble, expenses and anxiety of a public
trial. It is also intended to protect the State from having to conduct useless
and expensive trials.

13. It is thus imperative that the presumption, juris tantum, of regularity in

the performance of official duty by law enforcements agents be applied with
 studied restraint. This presumption should not by itself prevail over the
presumption of innocence and the constitutionally-protected rights of the
individual. It is the duty of courts to preserve the purity of their own temple
from the prostitution of the criminal law through lawless enforcement.
Courts should not allow themselves to be used as an instrument of abuse and
injustice lest an innocent person be made to suffer the unusually severe
penalties for drug offenses Tambasen v. People, 246 SCRA 184(1995).

14. This Court has taken judicial notice of this ugly reality in a number of
cases where we observed that it is a common modus operandi of corrupt law
enforcers to prey on the weak and hapless persons, particularly unsuspecting
provincial hicks. The use of shady underworld characters as informants, the
relative ease with which illegal drugs may be planted in the hands…

15. The objective test in buy-bust operations demands that the details of the
purported transaction must be clearly and adequately shown. This must start
from the initial contact between the poseur-buyer and the pusher, the offer to
purchase, the promise or payment of the consideration until the
consummation of the sale by the delivery of the illegal drug subject of the
sale. ..These critical things are vital in the prosecution of illegal sale of drugs
which requires strict scrutiny to insure that law-abiding citizens are not
trapped into the odious prey of corrupt police officers;

16. All these procedural lapses invite suspicion that no buy bust operation
really happened;

17. The warrantless arrest of accused is unlawful. As settled, warrantless

arrests are allowed only in three instances as provided by Section 5, Rule
113 of 1985 Rules on Criminal Procedure, to wit:

Section 5. Arrest without a warrant; when lawful.—A peace officer

or a private person may, without a warrant arrest a person
1. When, in his presence, the person to be arrested has
committed , is actually committing, or is attempting to
commit an offense;
2. When an offense has in fact just been committed, and he has
personal knowledge of facts indicating that the person to be
arrested has committed it; and
3. X X X
 18. It is as clear as broad daylight that accused was not engaged nor does he
appear to be doing an illegal act when police officers grabbed him out of the
vehicle he was then boarding, thus making his arrest unlawful;

19. The subsequent search and seizure made by the arresting officers are
likewise unlawful as they were not made pursuant to a lawful arrest;
20. The warrantless arrest of accused and the search of his person are
altogether illegal. No less than the Constitution proscribes search and seizure
without judicial warrant and any evidence obtained without such warrant is
inadmissible for any purpose in any proceeding.
21. I am executing this counter-affidavit to attest to the truthfulness of
the foregoing statements and to refute the allegations of the
complainant.
IN WITNESS HEREOF, I have hereunto affixed my signature this
__day of _______________________ in Marawi City, Philippines.

YUSOPH MENOR GURO

Affiant

SUBSRIBED AND SWORN to before me this __day of April 2015

in the City of Marawi, Philippines