GR 106025; (February, 1994) (Digest)
G.R. No. 106025 February 9, 1994
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, vs. CARLOS DE GUZMAN y PANALIGAN, accused-appellant.
FACTS
Accused-appellant Carlos de Guzman y Panaligan was on the police watch list as a prohibited drug peddler. After two unsuccessful entrapment attempts, a third buy-bust operation was conducted on September 23, 1991, along Coral and R. A. Reyes Streets, Tondo, Manila. PO3 Arnaldo Manzon acted as the poseur-buyer, and Patrolman Eduardo Chiapoco was the apprehending officer. At 7:30 p.m., Manzon, posing as a Metro Manila aide and accompanied by a confidential informant, approached de Guzman and asked to buy a deck of “shabu” for fifty pesos (P50.00). Manzon handed a marked P50.00 bill to de Guzman, who in exchange gave him an aluminum foil containing crystalline granules. After scrutinizing the contents, Manzon gave the pre-arranged signal, and Chiapoco arrested de Guzman. A search yielded four more aluminum foils containing white crystalline granules. The seized items were marked and submitted for chemical analysis, which confirmed they contained methylamphetamine hydrochloride. An Information was filed against de Guzman for violating Section 15, Article III of Republic Act 6425, as amended. The defense claimed de Guzman was merely at his mother’s house to ask for food and was apprehended without cause. The Regional Trial Court found him guilty and sentenced him to life imprisonment, a P20,000.00 fine, and costs.
ISSUE
Whether the trial court erred in upholding the credibility of the prosecution’s police witnesses and convicting the accused based on the presumption of regularity in the performance of official duty.
RULING
The Supreme Court affirmed the trial court’s decision. It held that the trial court correctly applied the disputable presumption of regularity in the performance of official duty in favor of the apprehending officers. The Court ruled that the alleged irregularities—Pat. Chiapoco not reading the Joint Affidavit of Apprehension before signing it and the two previous failed police operations against the accused—were insufficient to rebut this presumption. The failure to read the affidavit was deemed de minimis as it occurred after the buy-bust operation where the accused was caught in flagrante delicto. The prior failed operations did not indicate any irregularity in the September 23, 1991 operation. There was no evidence of ill motive by the police, and the accused was validly caught selling “shabu” without authority. Thus, the conviction was upheld.