G.R. No. 202692 November 12, 2014
EDMUND SYDECO y SIONZON, Petitioner, vs. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Respondent.

FACTS

On June 11, 2006, separate Informations were filed against petitioner Edmund Sydeco for Violation of Section 56(f) of Republic Act No. 4136 (drunk driving) and Article 151 of the Revised Penal Code (resisting arrest). The prosecution’s version states that police officers manning a checkpoint along Roxas Boulevard corner Quirino Avenue, Malate, Manila, spotted a swerving red Ford Ranger pick-up driven by Sydeco. The officers, who claimed Sydeco smelled of liquor, flagged him down and asked him to alight to rest at a nearby police station before resuming driving. Sydeco denied being drunk, talked rudely, and yelled at one officer. The officers then arrested him for drunk driving, during which he resisted by shoving and pushing. He was brought to Ospital ng Maynila, where a medical certificate indicated he was positive for alcoholic breath. He was then detained.
Sydeco’s defense claimed he was a victim. He asserted that when signaled to stop, he refused to alight due to a prior extortion experience, stating “plain view lang boss.” An officer then accused him of being drunk, pointed to empty beer bottles in his trunk, boxed him, poked a gun at his head, and arrested him. He was brought to the hospital where a medical certificate was issued without an examination. He was detained and later released after another medical examination showed physical injuries but negative for alcohol breath. He filed criminal charges against the officers and the doctor. He also argued that under RA 4136, the procedure for a traffic violation is to confiscate the driver’s license, not to arrest.
The Metropolitan Trial Court (MeTC) found Sydeco guilty, sentencing him to a fine for drunk driving and imprisonment plus a fine for resisting arrest. The Regional Trial Court (RTC) affirmed the conviction. The Court of Appeals (CA) denied Sydeco’s petition and affirmed the RTC decision.

ISSUE

1. Whether the CA erred in upholding the presumption of regularity in the performance of duties by the police officers.
2. Whether the CA erred in giving weight to the Medical Certificate issued by Dr. Harvey Balucating in the absence of his testimony.

RULING

The Supreme Court granted the petition and reversed the CA decision.
On the first issue, the Court found that the police officers did not perform their duties with regularity. Under Section 29 of RA 4136, the procedure for a traffic violation is to confiscate the driver’s license and issue a temporary operator’s permit, not to immediately arrest. The officers did not demand Sydeco’s license or issue a citation. Their claim that they asked Sydeco to rest at the police station was not a proper procedure under the law. The arrest for drunk driving was therefore unlawful. Consequently, the charge for resisting arrest under Article 151 of the RPC must fail because the arrest was illegal; there can be no valid crime of resistance to an unlawful arrest.
On the second issue, the Court ruled that the medical certificate (Exh. “F”) was inadmissible as evidence of Sydeco’s drunkenness. The certificate was presented through the records custodian of the hospital, not the issuing physician, Dr. Balucating. Sydeco objected to its admission, claiming no alcohol breath test was conducted. The certificate is considered hearsay because the doctor was not presented for cross-examination. While police observation of behavior can indicate drunkenness, the prosecution relied heavily on this certificate. Given the inadmissibility of the certificate and the unlawful arrest, the evidence for drunk driving was insufficient.
The Court emphasized that an appeal in criminal cases opens the entire case for review. The presumption of regularity in the performance of official duties cannot prevail over the constitutional presumption of innocence and must be rebutted by strong and convincing evidence. Here, the officers’ actions did not conform to law. The charges against Sydeco were dismissed.