Presumption of regularity

This is another case of presumption of regularity in the performance of duty applied in a buy-bust operation conducted by law enforcers. This is the case of Myrna.

Myrna was accused of illegal sale of .25 grams of shabu contained in four small size heat-sealed transparent plastic sachets, in violation of Section 5 of Republic Act 9165, otherwise known as the Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act. To establish her guilt, the prosecution presented a lone witness, PO1 Val who was a member of the team that conducted a buy-bust operation.

According to PO1 Val their team was formed to coordinate the entrapment of Max, a known drug dealer in their province. But after the arrest of Max in the operation and while being interviewed, Max revealed the identities of other people involved in the drug trade in the area including Myrna. And so they planned another buy-bust operation with Myrna as the subject.

The team brought along Max and arrived at the house of Myrna who was with her boyfriend Arnie. PO1 Val testified that he acted as poseur buyer and he was introduced by Max to Myrna as in need of and interested to buy shabu. Myrna then sought the permission of Arnie for the transaction. Val said that when Arnie agreed, Myrna went inside a room four or five meters away then returned and handed 4 sachets which she pulled from her pocket and handed to Max who in turn gave the marked P500 bill. Max then turned over to him the items he got from Myrna. Convinced that what Myrna gave him was shabu, Val said he gave the pre-arranged signal to his companions who were then within the vicinity.

Continuing his testimony Val then said that PO1 Rody and Police Chief Roger entered the house, introduced themselves as police officers, frisked Myrna and Arnie and searched the house. But their search yielded nothing. Myrna and Arnie were then taken to the police station where PO1 Rody put the markings “RCV”, referring to his initials, on the sachets taken from Myrna while another police prepared the request for laboratory examination. Val identified these sachets during his testimony which was examined to contain shabu.

Myrna on the other hand claimed that the prosecution failed to establish the elements of the crime charged. She contends that the subject of the police operation that day was only Max and the operations involving them arose only out of what Max told the police. In fact the warrantless search conducted in their house did not yield any incriminating evidence against her. She also argued that the chain of custody of the four sachets of shabu purportedly recovered from her was not established since the prosecution failed to prove that the four sachets forwarded to the crime laboratory were the same ones she “sold” to PO1 Val. Was Myrna correct?

No. A buy-bust operation is a form of entrapment whereby ways and means are employed for the purpose of capturing lawbreakers in the execution of their plan. Its use has been proven effective particularly in putting an end to the illicit business of drug peddlers who are susceptible to dealing with anyone willing to purchase their goods.

In this case Val was able to present a complete picture detailing the buy-bust operation in his testimony. The prosecution succeeded in establishing with moral certainty all the elements of the illegal sale of shabu to wit: (1) identity of the buyer and seller, object and consideration; (2) the delivery of the thing sold and the payment therefore.

The fact that Max was the subject of the initial operation does not in any way affect the validity of the operation conducted against Myrna. Her name and involvement in the illegal sale of shabu became known to the police after Max’s arrest. Myrna has not shown any plausible reason or ill motive on the part of the arresting officers to falsely impute to her such a serious and unfounded charge. When a police officer, such as PO1 Val was not moved by any ill motive to testify falsely against the accused, there is presumption of regularity in the performance of his duty.

As to the chain of custody of the sachets confiscated from her, PO1 Val identified in court, the four plastic sachets containing shabu which he bought from her. While he did not put markings on the items, he witnessed his fellow member put his initials on the sachets. Obviously the corpus delicti has been preserved and established. Besides, the integrity of the evidence is presumed to be preserved unless there is a showing of bad faith or ill motive, or proof that the evidence has been tampered with. Myrna has the burden of proving them to overcome the presumption of regularity in the handling of exhibits by public officers and the presumption that public officers properly discharge their duties. So Myrna is guilty as charged and sentenced to life imprisonment (People vs. Miranda, G.R. 174773, October 2, 2007). 

*    *    *

E-mail at: [email protected]