Counter Affidavit Illegal Gambling

Republic of the Philippines
Department of Justice
National prosecution Service
OFFICE OF THE PROVINCIAL PROSECUTOR
PROVINCE OF ISABELA
_______City, Isabela
GERALD ________, NPS DOCKET NO. _______________

Complainant,
-versus- For: VIOLATION OF P.D. NO. 1602 as

AMENDED by R.A. NO. 9287
IVELY DELA PENA y MILLARI,
CRISTALINA FEGO y LORENA and
HEZELYN DUMA y VILORIA,
Respondent/s.
x---------------------------------------x
JOINT COUNTER-AFFIDAVIT
We, IVELY DELA PENA y MILLARI, CRISTALINA FEGO y LORENA and

HEZELYN DUMA y VILORIA, of legal ages, Filipino, all married and residents of
Brgy. _______, San Mateo, Isabela, under oath, hereby depose and state THAT:
1. We are the same respondent in the above-entitled Complaint. On June

21, 2019, we personally received a Subpoena together with a copy of the
Complaint and its annexes and requiring us to submit our counter-affidavit within
ten (10) days from receipt thereof. We are now seasonably submitting this
counter-affidavit to refute the charge against us;
2. The complaint hurled against us by the complainant/s deserves

dismissal on the ground that the evidences are inadmissible;
3. We were told that under The Revised Rules on Criminal Procedure

particularly Section 11, Rule 126, it provides; “The officer seizing property under
the warrant must give a detailed receipt for the same to the lawful occupant of
the premises in whose presence the search and seizure were made, or in the
absence of such occupant, must, in the presence of at least two witnesses of
sufficient age and discretion residing in the same locality, leave a receipt in the
place in which he found the seized property.”;
4. The Rule above-mentioned is clear and unambiguous. A proper

inventory of the seized items is required. The arresting officers dismally failed to
comply with provisions of the Rule above-mentioned. Assuiming for the sake of
argument that we were arrested, and the arresting officers confiscated the
following; a) deck of cards, b) cash money in different denomination, amounting
to Two Hundred Eighty Pesos (P280.00) and d) the small table used in playing
tong-its. The arresting officers did not conduct inventory of the seized items in
our presence. The arresting officers failed to conduct the inventory, hence, there
were no markings made on the seized items. What the arresting officers attached
as part of their evidence are the pictures of the seized items together with the
respondents. Be that as it may, the picture falls short of what is required by the
Rules. A detailed receipt/inventory of the seized items is required; the inventory
must be in the presence of the respondents and a copy of said inventory must be
furnished the respondents. Aside from the fact that there was no marking and
inventory made, the arresting officers failed to attached a report on the proper
turn-over of the seized items from the arresting officer to the evidence custodian.
The Chain of Custody in the movement of the seized items was broken;
5. In the case of People vs. Gayoso, G.R. No. 206590, March 27, 2017,
The Supreme Court defined Chain of custody is defined as "duly recorded
authorized movements and custody of seized drugs or controlled chemicals or
plant sources of dangerous drugs or laboratory equipment of each stage, from
the time of seizure/confiscation to receipt in the forensic laboratory to
safekeeping, to presentation in court for destruction.";
6. Just like in drug related cases, the chain of custody rule must be strictly
observed in all seized items just like in this case. The observance of the chain of
custody rule is mandatory as to preserve the integrity of the seized items and to
cast doubt that the seized were altered. The moment an arresting officer seized
an item, an inventory must be conducted in the presence of the
respondent/accused. In the inventory stage, the arresting officer must make a
marking of the seized item to delineate it from others. The seized items must be
forwarded to the Custodian Officer. A report made and signed by the arresting
Officer and the Custodian Officer is necessary to ensure the proper turn-over of
the seized items. Failure of the arresting officer to attach such required proof
would means that the chain was broken. It then cast doubt as to the integrity of
the seized items;
7. In our case, the private complainants who are the arresting officers
themselves blatantly failed to observe the Chain of Custody Rule. It being so,
whatever allegedly seized items from us, respondents are inadmissible and
cannot serve as the basis in indicting us in court.
8. We are executing this Affidavit and attest to the veracity of what are
contained herein and, on the basis hereof, we are praying the dismissal of the
offense charged.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, we have hereunto affixed our signature this

____st day of July, 2019 at Echague, Isabela.
IVELY M. DELA PENA CRISTALINA L. FEGO

Affiant Affiant
ID. ID.
HEZELYN V. DUMA
Affiant
ID.
SUBSCRIBED AND SWORN to before me this ____st day of June, 2019 at

_________, Isabela. Affiants have read the contents of their joint counter-affidavit
and they acknowledged before me that the same were explained to them in a
manner and language they speak and understand, they understood the same
and these are true and correct to the best of their knowledge and belief. They
exhibited to me their _________________ with their name, picture and signature
as competent proof of their identity.
Doc. No. ____

Page No.____
Book Bo. ____
Series of 2019.

Counter Affidavit Illegal Gambling

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Counter Affidavit Illegal Gambling

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Counter Affidavit Illegal Gambling

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

What is the document about?

What rule did the arresting officers allegedly fail to follow?

Republic of the Philippines

GERALD , NPS DOCKET NO. _______

-versus- For: VIOLATION OF P.D. NO. 1602 as

We, IVELY DELA PENA y MILLARI, CRISTALINA FEGO y LORENA and

1. We are the same respondent in the above-entitled Complaint. On June

2. The complaint hurled against us by the complainant/s deserves

3. We were told that under The Revised Rules on Criminal Procedure

4. The Rule above-mentioned is clear and unambiguous. A proper

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, we have hereunto affixed our signature this

IVELY M. DELA PENA CRISTALINA L. FEGO

SUBSCRIBED AND SWORN to before me this ____st day of June, 2019 at

Doc. No. ____

You might also like