BICOL COLLEGE

COLLEGE OF CRIMINAL JUSTICE EDUCATION

BERT PASCUA Y
VALDEZ, PETITIONER,
VS. PEOPLE OF THE
PHILIPPINES
GR. NO. 2505 78,
SEPTEMBER 7,2020

Members:
Alamares, Bon andrei Ll.
Avila, Jason O.
De vera, Patrick
Jacob, Carlito B.
Malto, Reynaldo Jr. D.
Medina, Jodel Edgar L.
Navia, Peter L.
Nipas, John Christopher
Vergara, John Mark S.
Zamora, Earl Vince L.

1
 Introduction
The case of Bert Pascua y Valdez, Petitioner, vs. People of the Philippines,
Respondent, is a criminal case that was filed before the Philippine courts. The
petitioner, Bert Pascua y Valdez, was accused of violating Section 5 of Republic Act
No. 9165, or the Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002.

The case stemmed from an alleged buy-bust operation where the police officers found
illegal drugs in the possession of the petitioner. The petitioner denied the allegations
and claimed that the police officers planted the illegal drugs on him.
The case proceeded to trial, and the lower court found the petitioner guilty as charged.
The petitioner appealed the decision to the higher court, arguing that the lower court
erred in considering the prosecution witnesses' testimonies and in giving more weight
to the prosecution's evidence than his defense.

This case raised issues on the proper implementation of the Comprehensive

2
 Discussion

This case involves the petitioner, Bert Pascua y Valdez, who appealed his conviction
for violation of Section 5(a) of the Dangerous Drugs Act of 1972. Pascua was found
guilty of selling and delivering a sachet of shabu (methamphetamine hydrochloride)
to a police informant in exchange for money.

Pascua argued that the prosecution failed to prove his guilt beyond reasonable doubt,
that the arresting officers did not follow proper procedures, and that the evidence
against him was obtained through an illegal search.

The court, however, found the prosecution’s evidence credible and reliable, and
concluded that Pascua’s defense lacked merit. The court also ruled that the arresting
officers followed proper procedures and that the evidence against Pascua was legally
obtained.
One interesting aspect of this case is the application of the presumption of regularity
in the performance of official duties. The court relied on this presumption to support
the credibility of the arresting officers’ testimony and to presume that they followed
proper procedures.

Overall, this case highlights the importance of following proper procedures in the
enforcement of the law and the need for the prosecution to present credible and
reliable evidence to prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt.

3
 The Facts

The instant case stemmed from two (2) Informations filed before the RTC, docketed
as Criminal Case Nos. 18805 and 18806, respectively charging Pascua with violations
of Sections 5 and 11, Article II of RA 9165 for selling 0.024 gram and possessing
0.054 gram of methamphetamine hydrochloride, or shabu. Upon arraignment, Pascua
pleaded "not guilty" to the crimes charged. However, he later filed a Motion to Allow
Accused to Enter into Plea Bargaining Agreement wherein he offered to enter a plea
of "guilty" to the lesser offense of violation of Section 12, Article II of RA 9165 for
both criminal cases. The prosecution filed its Comment and Opposition thereto,
stressing that, per Department of Justice Department Circular No. 027-18, the State's
consent is necessary before the accused can plead to a lesser offense.

4
 Analysis

The case of Bert Pascua y Valdez v. People of the Philippines involves a petitioner
who filed a petition for review seeking the reversal of the decision of the Court of
Appeals that affirmed his conviction for violation of Section 5, Article II of Republic
Act No. 9165 or the Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002.

Pascua was arrested by the police during a buy-bust operation, where he was caught
in possession of drugs. He was subsequently charged and convicted for the crime of
illegal drug possession. The Court of Appeals upheld his conviction based on the
evidence presented by the prosecution, which included the testimony of the arresting
officers and the result of laboratory tests showing the presence of illegal drugs in the
substances recovered from Pascua during the operation.
In his petition for review, Pascua argued that his conviction should be reversed due to
the alleged inconsistencies in the testimonies of the police officers and the lack of a
proper chain of custody of the seized drugs. However, the Supreme Court denied his
petition and affirmed his conviction, stating that the testimonies of the arresting
officers were credible, and the chain of custody of the seized drugs was properly
established.

The case highlights the importance of proper procedures in the handling of drug-
related cases, particularly in the chain of custody involving seized drugs. It also
underscores the need for a thorough investigation and the presentation of sufficient
evidence in proving the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt.

Conclusion

Based on the case of Pascua, I recommend that the judiciary system continue to
uphold the law and its procedures with regards to the plea bargaining system. The
State's consent must remain a crucial aspect in finalizing any plea bargaining
agreement to ensure that the interests of society, the victim, and the accused are all

5
considered. I also recommend that judges exercise their discretion in granting or
denying probation, taking into account the circumstances of the case and the welfare
of society. It is important to recognize the nuances of the legal system and to prioritize
fairness and impartiality in all decisions. Finally, I recommend that proper legal
representation be prioritized to assist individuals in navigating the complexities of the
criminal justice system, especially when it comes to negotiating plea bargain
agreements. Education on the plea bargaining process and its implications must also
be provided to help individuals better understand their legal options and current
restrictions. Following these recommendation will strengthen the criminal justice
system's fairness and impartiality while protecting the welfare of society.

6
 References

Supreme Court of the Philippines. (2020, September 28). G.R. No. 250578. Retrieved
from https://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2020/sep2020/gr_250578_2020.html.

Republic of the Philippines. (2013). Comprehensive Firearms and Ammunition

Supreme Court of the Philippines. (2018). Bert Pascua y Valdez v. People of the
Philippines. G.R. No. 227460. Retrieved from
https://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2018/oct2018/gr_227460_2018.html