is .

Ii

It was around 6:00 P.M. when we arrived at the Sangali Police

f Station, therefore the time they mentioned in their complaint is not true, it

is just for the sake of meeting their fabricated documents to make it look

,A like that there was really a legitimate operation. j '

K. . .

They placed me inside the detention cell. l asked them why they

were placing me inside the detention cell but they did not answer me

5:'n'-viselv

The following day l was taken out of the detention cell. They

me near a table and made me stay beside it, l was petrified to

items on the table and they said that it was recovered from me. lt was

the first time that I saw those alleged seized items. l cannot do

ecause I was really scared.

Then next thing l know is that they are going to file a complaint

,,.

me for possessing and selling drugs. l am never engaged in selling

or in any illegal activity.

-='-xiv. t, I . .

be noted that the question number tour in their Judicial Affidavit

'Cv:I" T - '

?=;i3;leudng, how come the investigator would ask a specific time of 8:10
 this would manifest that they are just trying to fabricate a story line

support their afterthought documents that they also fabricated to

4|

t of their complaint to make it look like that it is as if a legitimate

n, where in fact they just illegally arrested me.

their effort of fabricating facts and supporting documents they

Jiled to make it in record that there was really a confidential

t and intomation was relayed. There was no blotter entry and

iere was an affidavit submitted by the confidential infomtant.

,.

also be noted that the term used by PSI Chester N. Natividad is

are going to have, another follow-up drug operation. With this

it it would point that they already have done a drug operation,

they could have secured a search warrant. Thus this will manifest

I are just inventing a story to indict me, because this is a clear

1
it 'Iherewas no cap submitted, then it cannot be established that there was

Q.- .

at.

i. I

2.

Jf Z

4- :1;

:1, -

*7;

aw

we

:!_*~

as?

st. ,

W:

~.~

.'1:;:_1%
Therefore without seeing anything illegal and in the absence of the

4 st, r4

is is

inconsistency a.nd contradictory. to_the claim that the event is unusual

incident." Follow up operation then unusual incident? What is this? Clearly

a follow up operation is not in the guise of unusual incident. Definitely this

is a contradiction, a clear manifestation, that there was really no valid or

legitimate operation that transpired. I

Their willful neglect to establish that there was really a confidential

mformant and with the contradicting story at the same time inconsistent

and to add PSI Chester N. Natividad did not also submit his affidavit to.

prove his participation. Therefore it cannot be established that there was

really an operation in the first place.

.,Q._

A, };;really a cap and that a pre-arranged signal was really conducted.

, < -. ' 1

Considering that the alleged arresting officer did not see any act of

transactions aside frorn talking. Definitely talking is not illegal per se.

0.

j cap the alleged arresting officer does not have a personal

T knowledge on what was going on, thus he cannot validly intrude

and arrest anybody talking, in fact he does not even know what

_was they talking about. lt was not even established by the alleged
arrestingsofficer that the person was really the target person. ln fact

he was only able to identify the arrested person after the illegal

arrest.

.4

Jhe arresting officer said l hurriedly rushed towards the suspect . . .

x>o< . . . and held his hand and introduced myself as a police and

immediately arrested himfor selling drugs, xxx conducted

body search where xxx clearly the arresting ofticer did not

any act of transaction then after the removal of the missing cap

just arrested a person and searched a person. This is very

and surely an illegal an'est then illegal search. not just a

illegal search and,arrest but an illegal arrest then illegal

6.

and in the Incident Recdrd Form and in the case report the markings of

:~;-;ihe bls are RBRSJRA6 and RBR6JR7", this will manifest that SPOI Ramos

two (2) bills, but he said he only recovered,and:marked one (1)

the 2 one hundred bill are XE 244428 and N9i24/83. on the face NQNE

V,

7%
i

'.

s.-,.

SPOT Ramos did not corroborate the claim of PO2 Falcasantos that PO2

Falcasantos claimed that he was given by PSI Natividad the marked

money, and PSI Natividad did not submit his affidavit to prove it.

q..,

,4

'lt should be noted that in the affidavit of SPOi Ramos he claimed

that he was only able to recover only one (T) one hundred bill with serial

number XD6896l6. (A.8 and A~.l4 Judicial Affidavit of SPOT Ruvin B.

Ramos)

This is inconsistent with the invented story of the alleged poseurs

buyer, which states that he gave two hundred pesos to the alleged

target. * ,.

Then later on in the inventory there is already two (2) hundred pesos

, W

as stated in his affidavit. Much worst the serial number in the inventory

->~.>;.Iof the two have the sanwe serial number with what SPOT Ramos

,4 r y I -

-lecovered. '

r-
A This is another glaring inconsistency, and evidence of LIE.

ln fact it was not established that a marked money was really issued

A PSI Natividad, there is no acknowledgement-, receipts, and

Natividad has no affidavit to prove his acts as claimed by the alleged

buyer and the alleged arresting officer.

The marked money was not dusted with uorescent powder and

was not examined if I am contaminated with such powder.

no finger print analysis made to prove that l had those money

it is very clear that they are just fabricating stories and

7.7.

alleged seized items were notrhandled in accordance with Section

X: *

v_ 1.1

'.-

T 7-3-

,.<

1;; l

.11 ~15.
;;I

xi

.,._ T

,4 Y-

Without the alleged marked money there could be no alleged

selling of prohibited drugs, therefore there can never be a valid arrest and

search. i

Therefore without the alleged selling of prohibited drugs there can

be no valid warrantless arrest, thus it will really follow that there can be no

further valid search. = ' ~

hit;

:_<1l',

s" '

4.

:1? ,-.-

cg l_"-" '

QT

.\
7

.-sgi ,

..

721. Article ll of R.A. 9165. _ '

There was no picture raken'in the place and time of incident.

l1

There was no inventory conducted in the place of incident;

There was no marking of the alleged seized items in the place of

incident.

The inventory was not witnessed by the media nor an elected

bdrangay official.

There is no chain of custody, sheet submitted. ' .

Then there was not at least an effort to explainwhythey

failed to observe the mandated procedure as provided in law.

Therefore the items allegedly seized has no integrity because

the identity is not preserved. 1 ti

in tact there is no finger print analysis made to prove that

those items really came from my possession.

It should also be noted that PO2 Falcasantos did not mention

specifically what was recovered when SPOT Ramos allegedly

searched me.

9.

D In tact the enumeration of items allegedly. seized was not

consistent SPO2 Ramos did not mention he was able to recover a

scissor and again he mentioned he only recovered _one (T)

hundred

.I'

pesos.

in ~ 5

1% '9

In . -4

Therefore there can never be evidence that could stand

against me. T _y

also like to mention that there is nospot report submitted.

,Y

The Certificate of Coordination only mentions that they

at 8:li PM. This is highly incredible because they claim that -*

only knew about the information on 8:10 P.M. clearly incredible.

To add, the Pre-operation coordination reportsheet was only

by the office of PDEA on May l6, 2Ol6 at l:l3 P.M. on the day

the complaint inthe prosecutor's office. Thus this will manifest

document is just after thought and just for filing purposes they

the document. _

this Affidavit to attest to the truth of the facts above- '

and to pray that the investigating prosecutor DISMISS the T

against ME for being fabricated. T

III-IEREOF, l have hereunto set my hand this i day of June '

of Zamboanga, Philippines. _ _

(QM V \_ .

PAizifi\ K. ALBANI

T Affiant g

AND SWORN to before me this I day of June 2016. in the

Philippines.

T JHOANNI .l\- EZ

~#W=t lOiiA ORNEY

- - CITY

cs _ -
' t TION

that l have ersonally examined the aftiant, and l am

understood the content of his Counter-Affidavit and that he

the same.

JHOAN t l-OMEZ

Q5806 ATTORNEY

GAClTY