Pp vs John Alejandro

32. People vs. John-John Alejandro GR No. 176350, Augus 10, 2011

!o"r#ne$Failure !o"r#ne$Failure to properly mark the evidence as provided in the rules of RA 9165 aects and compromises the integrity of the evidence. %a"s The RT the appellant !ohn"!ohn Ale#andro for viola$ng RA 9165 or the omprehensive %angerous %rugs Act of &''&. (t )as alleged that he sold sha*u to an undercover police on +eptem*er 1, &''&. The appellant appealed the case in the ourt of Appeals *ut the appellate court a-rmed the decision of the lo)er court sta$ng that the defense already admied the admissi*ility of certain evidences against the appellant and further stated that, in the a*sence of any mo$ve to do other)ise, the police o-cers are presumed to have performed their du$es in a regular manner. Thus, the appellant raised the maer to the +upreme ourt claiming that the RT erred in convic$ng him *ecause the prosecu$on failed to prove that the integrity of the sei/ed item, )ith police having failed to mark and photograph the sei/ed item, therefore, his guilt )as not proven to *e *eyond reasona*le dou*t. &ssue (s the eviden$ary presump$on that o-cial du$es have *een regularly performed *y the police o-cers applica*le in the prosecu$on of RA 91650 Rul#ng o. (n convic$ng the appellant, the RT and A relied on the eviden$ary presump$on that the police o-cers have performed their du$es in a regular manner. 2o)ever, this presump$on is not conclusive and cannot, *y itself, overcome the cons$tu$onal presump$on of innocence. The presump$on of regularity is assumed only )hen there is no devia$on from the regular performance of duty. (f there is any o-cial act that is 3ues$oned, the presump$on of regularity is no longer applied. (n the case at *ar, it )as clear that the o-cers failed to follo) the proper procedures s$pulated in paragraph 1, +ec$on &1, Ar$cle (( of R.A. o. 9165. +imply put, the ourt said that since they )ere not a*le to properly mark the evidence, the integrity of the evidence has *een compromised4 therefore )e can never *e fully certain that it )as s$ll the same item sei/ed on the day of the arrest. The failure to follo) the procedure is the reason )hy the accused )as ac3uied *y the ourt *ecause his guilt )as not esta*lished to *e *eyond reasona*le dou*t.