Case Digest: People vs. Cantalejo, G.R. No. 182790, April 24, 2009

                      Rule 115: Rights of the Accused  | Criminal Procedure

                    Presumption of Innocence, Presumption of Regularity in the performance of Duty

Facts:

Cesar Cantalejo was charged for violation of Section 5 (drug pushing) of RA 9165 through an entrapment operation.

Two male police assets reported on the illegal drug activities of a person named "Cesar" at a specific location.

A police entrapment team was formed, with SPO4 Celso Jeresano as the team leader and PO2 Paul Acosta as the poseur-buyer.

The defense claimed that armed men forcibly entered Cesar's house, searched for drugs, and interrogated Cesar and his family. Nomeriano Belen, Jr. testified that he heard loud sounds and saw armed men at Cesar's house.

Issue:

WON the trial court erred in convicting him as the constitutional presumption of innocence in his favor had not been overthrown.

Held:  YES. Cesar Cantalejo is ACQUITTED.

The Constitution mandates that an accused shall be presumed innocent until the contrary is proven beyond reasonable doubt. When the circumstances are capable of two or more inferences, as in this case, such that one of which is consistent with the presumption of innocence and the other is compatible with guilt, the presumption of innocence must prevail and the court must acquit.

In prosecutions for illegal sale of dangerous drugs, the following must be proven: 
(1) that the transaction or sale took place; 
(2) the corpus delicti or the illicit drug was presented as evidence; and
(3) that the buyer and seller were identified.
The dangerous drug is the very corpus delicti of the offense.

Their testimonies do not definitively state and nothing on record shows that the procedural requirements of Section 21, Paragraph 1 of Article II of R.A. No. 9165 with respect to custody and disposition of confiscated drugs were complied with. There was no physical inventory and photograph of the items allegedly confiscated from appellant. Neither did the police officers offer any explanation for their failure to observe the rule.

The failure of the police to comply with the procedure in the custody of the seized drugs raises doubt as to its origins. Failure to observe the proper procedure also negates the operation of the presumption of regularity accorded to police officers.

As a general rule, the testimony of the police officers who apprehended the accused is usually accorded full faith and credit because of the presumption that they have performed their duties regularly. However, when the performance of their duties is tainted with irregularities, such presumption is effectively destroyed.

While the law enforcers enjoy the presumption of regularity in the performance of their duties, this presumption cannot prevail over the constitutional right of the accused to be presumed innocent and it cannot by itself constitute proof of guilt beyond reasonable doubt. The presumption of regularity is merely just that—a mere presumption disputable by contrary proof and which when challenged by evidence cannot be regarded as binding truth.