32.

People vs. John-John Alejandro

GR No. 176350, August 10, 2011

Doctrine:Failure to properly mark the evidence as provided in the rules of RA 9165 affects and compromises the integrity of the evidence.

Facts

The RTC the appellant John-John Alejandro for violating RA 9165 or the Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002. It was alleged that he
sold shabu to an undercover police on September 1, 2002. The appellant appealed the case in the Court of Appeals but the appellate court
affirmed the decision of the lower court stating that the defense already admitted the admissibility of certain evidences against the appellant
and further stated that, in the absence of any motive to do otherwise, the police officers are presumed to have performed their duties in a
regular manner. Thus, the appellant raised the matter to the Supreme Court claiming that the RTC erred in convicting him because the
prosecution failed to prove that the integrity of the seized item, with police having failed to mark and photograph the seized item, therefore, his
guilt was not proven to be beyond reasonable doubt.

Issue

Is the evidentiary presumption that official duties have been regularly performed by the police officers applicable in the prosecution of RA
9165?

Ruling

No. In convicting the appellant, the RTC and CA relied on the evidentiary presumption that the police officers have performed their duties in a
regular manner. However, this presumption is not conclusive and cannot, by itself, overcome the constitutional presumption of innocence. The
presumption of regularity is assumed only when there is no deviation from the regular performance of duty. If there is any official act that is
questioned, the presumption of regularity is no longer applied. In the case at bar, it was clear that the officers failed to follow the proper
procedures stipulated in paragraph 1, Section 21, Article II of R.A. No. 9165. Simply put, the Court said that since they were not able to properly
mark the evidence, the integrity of the evidence has been compromised; therefore we can never be fully certain that it was still the same item
seized on the day of the arrest. The failure to follow the procedure is the reason why the accused was acquitted by the Court because his guilt
was not established to be beyond reasonable doubt.