Republic of the Philippines

Regional Trial Court

NATIONAL CAPITAL JUDICIAL REGION
Branch ___
Makati City

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES,

Plaintiff

Criminal Case No. 868686

For Violation of Section 5,
Article II of RA 9165

-versus-

JOHNNY DEPP Y CHRISTOPHER

@ MAD HATTER,
Accused
x---------------------------------------------x

COMMENT/OBJECTIONS

(To the Prosecutions Formal Offer of Documentary Evidence)

ACCUSED, by the undersigned counsel and unto this Honorable
Court, most respectfully comments and or objects to the Prosecutions
Formal Offer of Evidence as follows:
EXHIBITS

PURPOSE

Exhibits A, A-1, and A-1-a

The Accused admits the existence of said

Information.
However, the Accused objects as to the
purpose for which it is being offered. The
Accused categorically denies the offense
being charged against him. There is a
question as to the regularity of the
commission of the surveillance and the
buy-bust operation hence the Accused is
innocent of the crime being charged

Exhibits B, B-1 and B-2

against him.
The Accused admits the existence of said
resolution by the Public Prosecutor The
Dormouse.
However, the Accused objects as to the

purpose for which it is offered. The

Accused herein submits that the
averments and evidence presented
during the inquest does not substantiate
probable cause to indict the Accused of
Exhibits C, C-1, C-2, and C-2-a

the crime being charged.

The Accused objects to the purpose for
which it is offered.
Police Chief Inspector Catter Pillar was
not presented during trial. He was not
able to personally identify the
documents as well as to swear on the
truthfulness of the averments and due

execution of this document.

Exhibits D, D-1, D-2, D-2-a, D-2- The Accused admits of the existence of
b, and D-3

said document.
The Accused however objects to the
veracity and the truthfulness of the
averments of this Affidavit.
Furthermore, P01 Queen O. Hearts was
not presented during trial hence there is
a question as to the due execution of her

Exhibits E and E-1

signifying to this Joint Affidavit.

The Accused objects to the purpose for
which it is offered.
Police Chief Inspector Catter Pillar was
not presented during trial hence he was
not able to personally identify the
document as well as to swear on the
truthfulness of the averments and due

Exhibits F, F-1, F-1-a, and F-1-b

execution of this document.

The Accused admits the existence of the
document.
However, the Accused objects to the
purpose of the offer. There is a question
as to the truthfulness of the averments
and the due execution of the
Investigation Data Form.
The presumption of regularity was
clearly debunked hence there is no clear
showing that the Makati City Police
Officers strictly complied the Standard

Operating Procdures provided for under

their Rules.
In addition, the witnesses namely:
Kagawad March Hare, P01 Queen O.
Hearts, Mr. Cheshire Cat, P02 Tweedle
Dee, and P03 Tweedle Dum were never
presented during trial.
Forensic Chemist White Rabbit was only
presented during trial to identify the
contents of the sachet but has no
personal knowledge as to the identity of
the accused, the information and
subject of the tip and surveillance as
well as to the regularity of the
procedures conducted by the Makati
Exhibits G and G-1

City Police Officials.

The Accused objects to the purpose for
which it is offered.
It was proven during the testimony of
P02 Alice N. Wonderland that there was
a discrepancy as to the subject of the
tip, MAD HATTER and as to the identity
of the now accused, JOHNNY C. DEPP.
Furthermore, there was a question as to
the regularity of the surveillance as
there was no clear validation conducted

Exhibits H and H-1

by the Makati City Police Officials.

The Accused objects to the purpose for
which it is offered.
The Coordination Form was never
presented during trial hence there is a
question as to the due execution and
truthfulness of the averments of the
document.
Furthermore, there is also no clear
showing that there has been a proper
coordination made to other operatives or
agencies in the planning and conduct of

Exhibits I, I-1, I-2, I-3, I-4

the buybust operation.

The Accused objects to the purpose for
which it is offered and the items subject
of this document.

The Accused was never made to identify

the alleged seized items as contained in
the document hence there is an
irregularity with regard to the ownership
of these alleged seized items.
Furthermore, there is also an
irregularity with regard to the markings
thus a clear violation of the Chain of
Custody Rule.
There was also no clear showing that
these markings nor the inventory was
done in the presence of the Accused.
Exhibits J, K, and L

The Accused admits the existence and

the person subject of the mugshots.
However, the Accused categorically
denies that he is the correct subject of
the tip, surveillance, and arrest who is
identified as a certain person known as

Exhibit M

MAD HATTER.
The Accused objects to the purpose for
which it is offered.
The photographs in the document were
not clear nor were they presented during
the trial.
There was no clear showing that an
inventory was conducted hence the
proof that the police officers followed the
standard operating procedure is

Exhibit N

wanting.
The Accused objects to the purpose for
which it is being offered and the seized
items subject of this document.
The Accused was never made to identify
the alleged seized items as contained in
the document hence there is an
irregularity with regard to the ownership
of these alleged seized items. There is no
clear showing that the items seized were
that of the Accused. In addition, these

items were not presented during trial.

Furthermore, there is also an
irregularity with regard to the markings
thus a clear violation of the Chain of
Custody Rule.
There was also no clear showing that
these markings nor the inventory was
done in the presence of the Accused.
Exhibits O, O-1, O-1-a, O-1-b, O- The Accused objects to the purpose for
1-c, and O-1-c

which this document is being offered.

There has been a clear showing of
discrepancy and mishandling of this
alleged shabu substance when the
Forensic Chemist White Rabbit testified
in open court regarding this matter.
There is no clear showing of proper
turnover of these alleged seized items.
The shabu presented in open court did
not show markings or signatures of
persons who have handled the custody
of the substance. Furthermore, other
pieces of evidence allegedly seized from
the Accused were never presented in
Court so as to identify and examine the
alleged signatures. Thus, there is no
clear showing of proper handling and

Exhibit P

turnover of evidence.
The Accused objects to the purpose for
which this document is being offered.
In their Joint Affidavit of Attestation
(Exhibit D, D-1, D-2, D-2-a,
D-2-b, and D-3 for the
Prosecution) , the Police Officers
mentioned that the Urine Test was
conducted at the Ospital ng Makati.
However, the examination results was
issued by the Makati City Police Station
particularly by Forensic Chemist White
Rabbit when in open court, she has only
limited here participation in the case as
to the identification that indeed what is

inside the plastic sachets were shabu.

Other than that, there is no clear
showing that she has participated and
executed acts or documents pertaining
to this case. There is a clear showing of
irregularity as to the procedure
conducted by the Police Officers.
If at all, this only strengthened the case
of the Accused that he possesses good
moral character and the wrong subject
arrested by the Makati City Police
Exhibits Q, Q-1, and Q-2

Officials.
The Accused objects for the purpose for
which this document is being offered.
There is no clear showing that the
Accused consented to this examination
nor was this test conducted with the

Exhibits R, R-1, R-1-a

assistance of the Accuseds counsel.

The Accused admits to the existence of
the document but has reservation as to

Exhibits S, S-1, S-1-a, S-1-b

its due execution.

The Accused admits to the existence of
the document but not as to its due
execution.
It was clearly established in open court
during Forensic Chemist White Rabbit
testimony that the test that she
conducted was limited only as to the
identification that the substance was
truly a shabu but has no personal
knowledge as to the origins of the
substance.
She also had no personal knowledge as
to the identity of the accused and as to
the person of MAD HATTER.
Her signature over the plastic sachets
where the shabu is dispensed does not
also reflect her signature thus a clear

Exhibits T and T-1

violation of the Chain of Custody Rule.

The Accused objects to the purpose for
which this document is being offered.

The person who has executed this

document was not presented in Court.
The document was also not presented in
Court hence the genuineness, veracity,
truthfulness of the averments of the
document as well as its due execution
was not clearly established.
There is also no evidence presented
clearly showing that the alleged buybust
and surveillance was reported and
recorded with the Philippine Drug
Exhibits U and U-1

Enforcement Agency.
The Accused objects to the purpose for
which this document is being offered
because of its inadmissibility.
The Accused was not assisted by his
counsel when such document was
executed. There is also no clear showing
that any information elicited by the
Police Officers from the Accused was

Exhibit V

executed by him voluntarily.

The Accused objects to the purpose for
which it is being offered.
The document presented was not
presented in Court. There is also no
clear showing of its due execution as the
person who conducted and executed the
said document was not presented in
Court to identify and swear on the
genuineness, truthfulness, and veracity
of the averments stated in said

Exhibit W

document.
The Accused admits and stipulates that
he is currently detained at the Makati

Exhibit X and Y

City Jail.
The Accused objects to the purpose and
the identity of the sachets.
There is no clear showing that these
sachets were truly seized from the
Accused. The Accused disputes the
veracity as to the origins of these
substances. The Accused was first
shown these substances only after he

Exhibit Z

was arrested and detained.

The Accused objects to the purpose for
which this document is being offered.
The affiant of this document was not
presented in Court. There was no
examination done to test his personal
knowledge regarding the tip given by the
confidential informant as well as his
relationship to the informant, the
accused, and to the person of MAD
HATTER. If any, he would be merely
testifying based on hearsay which is
inadmissible.
The affiant was also not presented in
Court to identify the document and to
swear on the truthfulness, genuineness,
and the veracity of his averments as well
the due execution of such.

RELIEF
WHEREFORE, Accused most respectfully prays to this Honorable Court that the
foregoing object and documentary exhibits mentioned above be denied admission for
the reasons above stated. The Accused further prays for such other relief as may be
just and equitable under the premises.

MAKATI CITY
August 7, 2015
Respectfully Submitted,
Counsel for the Accused JOHNNY DEPP y CHRISTOPHER
CHARLES LUDWIG DOGSON LAW
CEU BUILDING,
2nd Floor Left Wing, Room 259
Sen. Gil Puyat Avenue
Makati City

ATTY. BERNHARD C. FULGENCIO

Associate

PTR No. 1384444, 01-08-14, Makati City

IBP Lifetime Membership No. 05098, 04-14-11
Roll of Attorneys No. 90501
MCLE Compliance No. IV-0008320, 09-27-12

Copy Furnished by Personal Service to:

The Dormouse
Assistant City Prosecutor