Primary Holding

The presumption of regularity in the performance of police duties cannot overcome the stronger presumption of innocence. The prosecution failed to establish guilt beyond reasonable doubt due to serious lapses in the chain of custody and the failure to properly prove the identities and credentials of mandatory insulating witnesses during the inventory of seized drugs. Accused-appellants are acquitted.

Background

Accused-appellants were apprehended in a buy-bust operation for allegedly selling and possessing methamphetamine hydrochloride (shabu). The Regional Trial Court (RTC) convicted them, and the Court of Appeals (CA) affirmed with slight modification. The case reached the Supreme Court via a Notice of Appeal. Accused-appellant Truelen passed away during the appeal process.

Facts

• 1. A confidential informant alerted police to Gerald Flores' drug peddling in Sitio Cabuyao, Barangay Sauyo, Quezon City.
• 2. A buy-bust operation was planned with PO1 Amar as the poseur-buyer.
• 3. PO1 Amar, with the informant, approached the accused-appellants in front of a farmer's house.
• 4. Flores ("GERALD") allegedly sold 0.10 gram of shabu to PO1 Amar for P500.
• 5. "PUNONOY" (Harrold Francisco) provided the sachet from his garter.
• 6. "LOUIE" (Louie Truelen) allegedly weighed the drugs inside the house.
• 7. After the transaction, PO1 Amar signaled, and the buy-bust team arrested all accused-appellants.
• 8. Four sachets of suspected shabu and a weighing scale were seized.
• 9. Inventory was conducted at the police station, not at the place of arrest, with a media representative (Jun Tobias) and a barangay kagawad (Nelson Dela Cruz) as witnesses.
• 10. The seized items tested positive for methamphetamine hydrochloride.
• 11. PO1 Amar admitted in court that the inventory was done at the police station due to bystanders and that they did not coordinate with PDEA.
• 12. The signatures on the inventory form and the ID of the media representative did not match, and there was no proof of the barangay kagawad's identity or credentials.
• 13. Accused-appellants denied the charges, claiming they were looking for "Jun Pugad" and were taken to the police station after being beaten. They claimed they were subjected to drug tests in a different precinct before being brought to QCPD Station 4.

Arguments of the Petitioners

• 1. N/A (People of the Philippines is Plaintiff-Appellee, but they did not file a supplemental brief in the Supreme Court.)

Arguments of the Respondents

• 1. The prosecution failed to prove their guilt beyond reasonable doubt.
• 2. There were irregularities in the buy-bust operation and the handling of evidence.
• 3. The chain of custody was broken, particularly regarding the inventory and the presence of mandatory witnesses.
• 4. The identities and credentials of the insulating witnesses were not properly established, casting doubt on the integrity of the inventory process.
• 5. The presumption of regularity should not prevail over the presumption of innocence.

Issues

• 1. Whether the guilt of the accused-appellants for illegal sale and possession of dangerous drugs was proven beyond reasonable doubt.
• 2. Whether the chain of custody of the seized drugs was properly established, specifically concerning compliance with Section 21 of R.A. No. 9165 regarding inventory and the presence of mandatory witnesses.
• 3. Whether the presumption of regularity in the performance of official duties applies and outweighs the presumption of innocence in this case.
• 4. Whether the identities and credentials of the insulating witnesses were sufficiently proven.

Ruling

• 1. The Supreme Court ruled in favor of the accused-appellants, granting the appeal and reversing the lower court decisions.
• 2. The Court found that the prosecution failed to prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt due to significant lapses in the chain of custody and the insufficient proof regarding the mandatory insulating witnesses.
• 3. The Court emphasized that the presumption of innocence is paramount and the presumption of regularity cannot overcome it, especially in drug cases where strict adherence to procedural safeguards is crucial.
• 4. The discrepancies in the inventory process, the unexplained delay in obtaining insulating witnesses, and the lack of verification of their identities and credentials created reasonable doubt, undermining the integrity and evidentiary value of the seized drugs.

Doctrines

• 1. Presumption of Innocence: The fundamental right of the accused to be presumed innocent until proven guilty beyond reasonable doubt. This presumption is stronger than the presumption of regularity.
• 2. Chain of Custody: The duly recorded authorized movements and custody of seized drugs, from seizure to presentation in court, ensuring the integrity and evidentiary value of the evidence. Critical links must be established, including proper inventory and the presence of mandatory witnesses.
• 3. Presumption of Regularity: The assumption that public officers perform their duties with regularity and according to law. This presumption is subordinate to the presumption of innocence and cannot be used to validate lapses in procedure, especially in drug cases.
• 4. Insulating Witnesses Rule (Section 21, R.A. 9165): The mandatory presence of representatives from the media and DOJ, or elected public officials, during the inventory of seized drugs to safeguard against planting, contamination, or loss of evidence, and to ensure transparency and credibility of the buy-bust operation.

Key Excerpts

• 1. "Simply put, the presumption of regularity in the conduct of police officers cannot trump the constitutional right to be presumed innocent until proven guilty."
• 2. "The Court stresses that the presumption of regularity in the performance of duty cannot overcome the stronger presumption of innocence in favor of the accused. Otherwise, a mere rule of evidence will defeat the constitutionally enshrined right to be presumed innocent."
• 3. "Law enforcers should not trifle with the legal requirement to ensure integrity in the chain of custody of seized dangerous drugs and drug paraphernalia."
• 4. "By sacrificing the sacred and indelible rights to due process and presumption of innocence for the sheer sake of convenience and expediency, the very maintenance of peace and order sought after is rendered wholly nugatory."

Precedents Cited

• 1. People v. Ordiz: Overruled outdated jurisprudence regarding the presumption of regularity in drug cases, emphasizing that it cannot overcome the presumption of innocence. Used to highlight that reliance on presumption of regularity was erroneous.
• 2. People v. Tomawis: Elaborated on the operationalization of Section 21 of R.A. 9165, particularly the requirement of conducting inventory immediately after seizure and in the presence of required witnesses. Used to show non-compliance with inventory procedure.
• 3. Nisperos v. People: Clarified that insulating witnesses are not required to witness the arrest and seizure but must be readily available for the inventory. Used to highlight the requirement of readily available witnesses, which was not met.
• 4. People v. Mendoza: Discussed the necessity of insulating witnesses to protect the integrity and credibility of seized drugs and prevent planting or contamination. Used to explain the purpose of insulating witnesses.
• 5. Luna v. People: Emphasized adherence to strict law and jurisprudence in drug cases due to the potential for abuse. Used to underscore the importance of strict compliance.
• 6. People v. Somira: Noted that non-compliance with procedure needs justification and proof of preserved integrity of evidence. Used to show the lack of justification for non-compliance in this case.
• 7. People v. Holgado: Stressed that law enforcers should not trifle with chain of custody rules, especially with small amounts of drugs. Used to emphasize the importance of chain of custody even for small drug quantities.
• 8. People v. Unisa & People v. De Guzman: Cited by the trial court regarding presumption of regularity but were considered outdated jurisprudence by the Supreme Court. Mentioned to show the outdated jurisprudence relied upon by lower courts.
• 9. People v. Mabunga: Elucidated the nature and limitations of presumptions in criminal cases, emphasizing caution in using them against the accused. Used to explain the principle regarding presumptions in criminal cases.
• 10. Tolentino v. People & People v. Lung Wai Tang: Cited in footnotes regarding chain of custody. Mentioned for further reading and context on chain of custody principles.

Statutory and Constitutional Provisions

• 1. Republic Act No. 9165 (Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002), Section 5: Violation of sale, trading, etc., of dangerous drugs - offense charged against Flores, Francisco, and Truelen in Criminal Case No. R-QZN-16-14780-CR.
• 2. Republic Act No. 9165 (Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002), Section 13: Violation of possession of dangerous drugs during parties, social gatherings, or meetings - offense charged against Truelen in Criminal Case No. R-QZN-16-14784-CR.
• 3. Republic Act No. 9165, Section 21, paragraph 1 (as amended by R.A. No. 10640): Procedure for custody and handling of seized drugs, requiring immediate inventory and photography in the presence of the accused and mandatory witnesses.
• 4. Act No. 3815 (Revised Penal Code), Article 89, paragraph 1: Extinguishment of criminal liability upon death of the offender.
• 5. 2019 Revised Rules on Evidence, Rule 131, Section 3, paragraph (m): Disputable presumption of regularity in the performance of official duties.
• 6. 2019 Revised Rules on Evidence, Rule 131, Section 6: Presumptions in criminal cases, stating that presumed facts establishing guilt must be proven beyond reasonable doubt.