REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES

DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE
OFFICE OF THE CITY PROSECUTOR
Chief Fernan Hall Of Justice, Capitol Compound Road
Cebu City

PSI ALCARAZ, SPO1 LAMBERT

POCA CUIZON, SPO2 JAMES REID,
SPO1 BUTCH BITO, PO1 DANIEL
PADILLA, SPO3 RICARDO
DALISAY of the Cebu City PNP
Station 4
Complainants,
NPS No.: VII-01-INQ-01F-0101
For: VIOLATION OF: Sec. 5
of RA 9165

-versus-

JORDANE MICHAEL YUTEEKIONG

Respondent,

x- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - /

RESOLUTION

This resolves the complaint filed by the above-named Complainants

for violation of the Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act under Sec. 5 of
RA 9165 against Respondent, JORDANE MICHAEL YUTEEKIONG.

In support thereof, herein Complainants attached the following

affidavit of witnesses, documentary and physical evidences.
Resolution
NPS No.: VII-01-INQ-01F-0101
PSI ALCARAZ, et al., vs. Yuteekiong.
Page 1
A. Testimonial Evidence:

1. Judicial Affidavit of SPO1 Butch Bito;

2. Judicial Affidavit of SPO1 Lambert Cuizon;
3. Judicial Affidavit of Medico-Legal Officer Augustine Ong Vaño

B. Documentary Evidence

1. Investigation Data Form;

4. Arrest and Booking Sheet;
5. Inventory Receipt;
6. Lab Results of Drugs seized; 
7. Drug Test Result of accused;
8. Medico-Legal Certification;
9. Chain of Custody Form;
10.Authority to Operate;
11.Pre-Operation Report;
12. Request for Appearance of a Barangay Official

C. Object Evidence

1. Photograph of the marked money;

13.Photograph of the seized drugs

I. STATEMENT OF THE FACTS

Complainants’ Version

Resolution
NPS No.: VII-01-INQ-01F-0101
PSI ALCARAZ, et al., vs. Yuteekiong.
Page 2
 The facts as claimed and admitted by Complainants in their respective
Judicial Complaint-Affidavits are briefly discussed as follows:

Respondent is the owner of Club Sandy Pebbles, a local

nightclub and bar (herein referred to as “Sandy Pebbles”), located at
Archbishop Reyes, Brgy. Luz, Mabolo, Cebu City.

Complainants claim to have received information from an

employee of the Respondent, Clarlaine Radoc (Radoc for brevity),
that illicit drugs are being sold and consumed in Sandy Pebbles.
Acting on the strength of such information, Complainants set up a
buy-bust operation with the help of Radoc.

Thereafter, on March 1, 2020, Complainants proceeded to

Sandy Pebbles where they were met by Radoc. SPO1 Butch Bito
(SPO1 Bito for brevity), then posing as a high-profile client, was
entertained by Radoc. The latter then introduced SPO1 Bito to the
Respondent. SPO1 Bito then handed over a marked money to the the
Respondent and the latter then gave him a plastic ziplock bag filled
with blue square-shaped pills. A few seconds thereafter, the
Complainants swooped inside and arrested the Respondent.

Complainants then proceeded to the Mabolo Police Station for

the marking, inventory, and the documentation of the confiscated
pieces of evidence seized conducted by SPO1Lambert Cuizon, in the
presence of a media reporter from Brigada News and a Barangay
Kagawad. The four (4) plastic bags of ecstasy pills, with twenty-five
(25) pills in each plastic bag were then transmitted to PNP Regional
Crime Laboratory Office and received by Augustine Ong Vaño, who,
after having conducted a chemical examination of the seized items,
determined the same to have yielded a positive result for the presence
of 3,4-Methylenedioxymethamphetamine, or more commonly as
ecstasy.

Respondent was then brought to Camp Lira Mabolo, Cebu

City for booking and further documentation and later he was subjected
to a medical examination at the PNP Regional Crime Laboratory
Office-8, Cebu City. The urine analysis of the Respondent then
yielded a positive result for the presence of Methamphetamine,
MDMA, Cocaine and THC.

Respondent’s Version

The facts as claimed and admitted by Respondent in his respective

Judicial Counter-Affidavit are briefly discussed as follows:
Resolution
NPS No.: VII-01-INQ-01F-0101
PSI ALCARAZ, et al., vs. Yuteekiong.
Page 3
 In Respondent’s Counter-Affidavit, he claimed that he was at
Club Sandy Pebbles the night of March 1, 2020, specifically at the
back office of the night club where he and Mr. Psalm Pueblos, the
Club Manager, were going over the financial records of the business.
Soon after, they heard a “commotion” from the night club and they
immediately checked on it but later on they were prevented by several
individuals, armed with gun and in civilian clothing with no indication
that they were policemen, from leaving.

Respondent thought they were armed vigilantes or armed

militia men. They did not introduce themselves nor did they announce
their identities and authority. While restrained, these civilian gunmen
then pointed their guns at them and started to frisk Respondent but his
pockets were empty. Later, one of their colleagues waved a plastic bag
from outside the office which appeared to be and contained with
several pills.

At this point, Respondent was informed he is being arrested

for selling drugs that was inside the plastic bag. The armed men then
announced that the plastic bag belonged to Respondent and placed it
inside their back pockets, took some personal belongings of the
Respondent including his wallet which contained cash. Respondent
was then forced, while being restrained, to go the police station with
them.

Such facts as alleged the Respondent are corroborated by the

Club’s manager, Psalm Pueblos as provided in his Judicial Affidavit.

II. STATEMENT OF THE ISSUES

Thus, the issue brought before us is whether there exists

sufficient facts and circumstances to warrant the finding of probable
cause to charge the Respondent for violation of Sec. 5 of R.A. 9165.

III. APPLICABLE LAWS AND JURISPRUDENCE

Resolution
NPS No.: VII-01-INQ-01F-0101
PSI ALCARAZ, et al., vs. Yuteekiong.
Page 4
 Section 5 of RA 9165 or the Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act,
viz:
“Section 5. 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, deliver, give away to
another, distribute dispatch in transit or transport any
dangerous drug, including any and all species of opium
poppy regardless of the quantity and purity involved, or shall
act as a broker in any of such transactions.

The penalty of imprisonment ranging from

twelve (12) years and one (1) day to twenty (20) years and a
fine ranging from One hundred thousand pesos
(P100,000.00) to Five hundred thousand pesos (P500,000.00)
shall be imposed upon any person, who, unless authorized by
law, shall sell, trade, administer, dispense, deliver, give away
to another, distribute, dispatch in transit or transport any
controlled precursor and essential chemical, or shall act as a
broker in such transactions. xxx”

The very kernel of the above-cited provision of law lays its foundation
on the existence of a perfected sale, which is then consummated by the
delivery of the object of the transaction to the buyer.

To secure a conviction for illegal sale of dangerous drugs under

Section 5, Article II of RA 9165, the prosecution must establish the
following elements: (1) the identity of the buyer and the seller, the object of
the sale and its consideration; and (2) the delivery of the thing sold and the
payment therefor.( People v. Alberto, 625 Phil. 545, 554 (2010) citing
People v. Dumlao, 584 Phil. 732, 739 (2009).

In the prosecution of the offense of illegal sale of prohibited drugs,

what is material is the proof that the transaction or sale actually took place,
coupled with the presentation in court of the corpus delicti as evidence |||

(Teodosio y Blancaflor v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 124346, [June 8,

2004])

The delivery of the dangerous drug to the poseur-buyer by the accused

as the seller, and the receipt by the latter of the marked money during the
buy-bust transaction are the acts that consummate the crime of illegal sale of
the dangerous drug. Considering that there can be no sale without the
delivery, the act of delivery must be proved in order to hold the accused

Resolution
NPS No.: VII-01-INQ-01F-0101
PSI ALCARAZ, et al., vs. Yuteekiong.
Page 5
guilty of the crime of illegal sale of the dangerous drug. (People v. Yagao y
Llaban, G.R. No. 216725, [February 18, 2019])

The facts before us present a classic case of a sale of dangerous drugs

by virtue of a buy-bust operation.

Herein Respondent was caught “dead to rights” as the evidence

submitted by the Complainants clearly show that it was the Respondent
himself who negotiated with the poseur-buyer, SPO1 Bito for the price of
the illicit drugs and to which they finally agreed on a fixed sum—this
represented the perfection of the sale. Thereafter, it was likewise still the
Respondent who personally handed over the illicit drugs to SPO1 Bito in
exchange for the marked money—this was then the
culmination/consummation of the sale. Hence, there was in legal
contemplation a consummated sale between the two as substantially
provided in SPO1 Bito and SPO1 Cuizon’s respective Judicial Affidavits.

On the other hand, Respondent insists he was framed up for

possession of the illicit drugs after the search in his office while he was
allegedly going over the financial records of the business.

Frame-up, a usual defense of those accused in drug-related cases, is

viewed by the Court with disfavor since it is an allegation that can be made
with ease. For this claim to prosper, the defense must adduce clear and
convincing evidence to overcome the presumption that the arresting
policemen performed their duties in a regular and proper manner. (People
vs. Zheng Bai Hui, 338 SCRA 420, 478 [2000]; People vs. Boco, et al. 309
SCRA 42, 65 [1999]; People vs. Clapano, 227 SCRA 598, 604, [1993].

Further, as held in People v. Chua, G.R. No. 133789, 23 August 2001,

without proof of any intent on the part of the police officers to falsely
impute appellant in the commission of a crime, the presumption of regularity
in the performance of official duty and the principle that the findings of the
trial court on the credibility of witnesses are entitled to great respect,
deserve to prevail over the bare denials and self-serving claims of appellant
that he had been framed up.

What strikes this Investigation officer the most is that Respondent

claimed that when he heard a “commotion” from the night club, he
immediately checked on it but later on was prevented by several individuals,
armed with guns. Yet however, Respondent failed to show the least bit of
evidence to prove the happening of such an occurrence. Of the many people
present in his club that night, surely he could have produced at least one
credible witness to show the occurrence of such facts. Instead, Respondent
opted to provide as his witness his very own Club Manager, whom he so
conveniently claimed was with him at the same office when the
Complainants allegedly barged in.

Resolution
NPS No.: VII-01-INQ-01F-0101
PSI ALCARAZ, et al., vs. Yuteekiong.
Page 6
 Unfortunately, such statements fail to sway this Investigation officer.
A far cry of an otherwise unsubstantiated tale of a man so desperately
throwing out every possible lifeline he can in hopes suppressing the truth.
With nothing to substantiate Respondent’s malicious accusation that the
police officers were improperly motivated by conducting a frame-up,
credence shall be given to the narration of the incident by the prosecution
witnesses because, being police officers, they are presumed to have
performed their duties in a regular manner. Certainly, the presumption of
regularity must prevail over Respondent’s unfounded allegations.

Respondent having failed miserably in overcoming the presumption

of regularity in the Complainants’ performance of their official functions
and other than his self-serving allegation, no other evidence whether
testimonial or documentary has been adduced by him to strengthen his
claim. No one was ever presented by the defense to corroborate the version
of events proffered by the accused. Hence, bare denials and the frail defense
of frame-up cannot prevail over the categorical and unshaken testimonies of
the apprehending officers who nabbed them red-handed and positively
identified them as the person they caught for violation of R.A. 9165 during
the buy-bust operation.

In sum, the prosecution duly established the identity of accused as a

drug seller through the testimonies of SPO1 Bito, the poseur-buyer, and
SPO1 Cuizon, as back-up officer. SPO1 Bito testified that it was the accused
who he handed the marked money for the drugs that he bought on March 1,
2020; and that accused latter then gave him a plastic ziplock bag filled with
blue square-shaped pills. Both SPO1 Bito and SPO1 Cuizon identified
accused as the one they arrested during the buy-bust operation. Hence, the
undersigned thereby finds probable cause to charge the Respondent for
violation of the offense as designated and defined above.

WHEREFORE, IN VIEW OF THE FOREGOING, it is most

respectfully recommended that an Information for the violation of Section 5
of RA 9165 (Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act), as amended, be filed
against Respondent Jordane Michael Yuteekiong.

SO RESOLVED.

Cebu City, Philippines. April 19, 2020.

(Sgd.)
SAMUEL ISIDORE A. ESCAÑO
Resolution
NPS No.: VII-01-INQ-01F-0101
PSI ALCARAZ, et al., vs. Yuteekiong.
Page 7
 Administering Assistant City Prosecutor
Roll of Attorneys No. 1234567
IBP No. 1234567 (Lifetime); Cebu City
PTR No. 1234567; 1/3/2020; Cebu City
MCLE Compliance No. VI-0024203; April 15, 2019

APPROVED:
(Sgd.)
JABAR A. SABDULLAH
City Prosecutor
Roll of Attorneys No. 11122
IBP No. 111222 (Lifetime); Cebu City
PTR No. 11222; 1/3/2020; Cebu City
MCLE Compliance No. VI-0011222; April 15, 2019

Copy Furnished:

PSI JOSEPH ALCARAZ

Complainant
Cebu City, PNP Station 4,
Mabolo, Cebu City

SPO1 LAMBERT CUIZON

Complainant
Cebu City, PNP Station 4,
Mabolo, Cebu City

SPO2 JAMES REID

Complainant
Cebu City, PNP Station 4,
Mabolo, Cebu City

SPO1 BUTCH BITO

Complainant
Cebu City, PNP Station 4,
Mabolo, Cebu City

PO1 DANIEL PADILLA

Complainant
Cebu City, PNP Station 4,
Mabolo, Cebu City

Resolution
NPS No.: VII-01-INQ-01F-0101
PSI ALCARAZ, et al., vs. Yuteekiong.
Page 8
SPO3 RICARDO DALISAY
Complainant
Cebu City, PNP Station 4,
Mabolo, Cebu City

ATTY. JAKE CUENCA

Counsel for Respondent
Suite No.111th floor, Apple One Equicom Tower
Cebu Business Park
Cebu City

Resolution
NPS No.: VII-01-INQ-01F-0101
PSI ALCARAZ, et al., vs. Yuteekiong.
Page 9