CASE 2016-0081: PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES VS. JEHAR REYES (G.R. No. 199271, 19 OCT 2016, BERSAMIN, J.) (SUBJECT/S: GROUNDS FOR REVERSING  DRUG CONVICTION; PRESUMPTION OF INNOCENCE VIS A VI PRESUMPTION OF REGULARITY IN PERFORMANCE OF DUTY) (BRIEF TITLE: PEOPLE VS J. REYES).

 

DISPOSITIVE:


“WHEREFORE the Court REVERSES and SETS ASIDE the decision promulgated on June 13, 2011 by the Court  of Appeals in CA-G.R. CEB CR-H.C. No. 00792 entitled People v. Jehar Reyes; ACQUITS accused-appellant JEHAR REYES of the offense charged on the ground of reasonable doubt; and ORDERS his immediate release from detention at the National Penitentiary, unless there are other lawful causes warranting his •continued detention.

 

The Court DIRECTS the Director of the Bureau of Corrections to forthwith implement this decision, and to report his action hereon to this Court within ten ( l 0) days from receipt.

 

No pronouncement on costs of suit.

 

SO ORDERED.”

 

SUBJECTS/DOCTRINES/DIGEST:

 

“Was the chain of custody preserved in this case?

 

It appears clear to us as a reviewing court that the chain of custody was not preserved in the manner required by the aforementioned guidelines fixed by law. . . .”

 

First of all, the confiscated items were not marked immediately after the seizure. . . .

 

Secondly, the law specifically required that the marking must  be witnessed by the accused, but there was no credible showing by the State that the accused had actually witnessed the process of marking. . . .”

 

Thirdly, another substantial gap in the chain of custody concerned the absence of any representative of the media or of the Department of Justice (DOJ), and of the elected public official during the buy-bust operation and at the time of the confiscation of the dangerous drugs from the accused in the area of operation. . . .”

 

And, lastly, the arresting officers did not prepare any inventory of the confiscated items, and did not take photographs of the items. . . . .”

 

The presumption of regularity in the performance of duty in favor of the arresting officers did not prevail over the presumption of innocence in favor of the accused . . . .

 

The accused charged with a violation of the Comprehensive Drugs Act of 2002 is always presumed innocent of the crime charged against him. This presumption of his innocence, which has been enshrined in Section 14, Article III (The Bill of Rights) of the Constitution, ensures that: “In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall be presumed innocent until the contrary is proved.” It underlies our system of criminal justice, and far outweighs any other presumption, particularly one that is essentially a rule of evidence. . . .

 

The presumption of regularity of performance of official duty stands only when no reason exists in the records by which to doubt the regularity of the performance of official duty. . . .

 

Moreover, the regularity of the performance of their duty could not be properly presumed in favor of the policemen because the records were replete with indicia of their serious lapses. As a rule, a presumed fact like the regularity of performance by a police officer must be inferred only from an established basic fact, not plucked out from thin air. . . .”


TO READ THE DECISION, JUST CLICK/DOWNLOAD THE FILE BELOW.

 

 scd-2016-0081-people-of-the-philippines-vs-jehar-reyes

 

NOTE: TO RESEARCH ON A TOPIC IN YAHOO OR GOOGLE SEARCH  JUST TYPE “jabbulao and the topic”. EXAMPLE: TO RESEARCH ON FORUM SHOPPING JUST  TYPE “jabbulao and forum shopping”.