It is a longstanding tenet in criminal law that every accused enjoys the constitutional right to be presumed innocent. This presumption may be overturned only when the prosecution has discharged its burden of proof and established the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt — by proving each and every element of the crime charged.

In drug cases, therefore, the accused may simply rely on this constitutional safeguard. The burden never shifts. It always remains with the prosecution.

In People v. Flores (G.R. No. 262686, 11 October 2023), the Supreme Court reversed the conviction rendered by the lower courts and acquitted the accused of the crime of sale of dangerous drugs for the failure of the prosecution to prove the elements of the offense beyond reasonable doubt.

The High Court ruled that it was erroneous for the lower courts to rely on outdated jurisprudence sustaining the presumption of regularity in the performance of official duties by police officers during the conduct of the buy-bust operation and the marking and inventory of confiscated evidence. Recent jurisprudence had already clarified that such a presumption cannot prevail over the constitutional presumption of innocence.

In acquitting the accused, the Court underscored glaring irregularities that shattered the presumption of regularity:

1. The troubling uncertainty regarding the exact time when the inventory was conducted.

2. The admission by the police officers that the required insulating witnesses — from the DoJ, the media, and public elective office — were not readily available and took a significant amount of time to arrive during the inventory of the seized drugs.

3. The absence of proof as to the identity and credentials of these insulating witnesses, coupled with the glaring discrepancy between their signatures in the inventory form and those appearing on their identification cards.

These inconsistencies were not trivial. They went into the very integrity of the chain of custody. They destroyed the presumption of regularity and could not overcome the primacy of the constitutional presumption of innocence.

More importantly, the Supreme Court reminded law enforcement officers that they cannot hide behind the cloak of regularity in drug prosecutions. The Court candidly recognized the grave danger that officers may feign compliance with the chain-of-custody rule by simply pulling any “Tom, Dick, or Harry” from the street to sign the inventory form without proof of identity or credentials. Worse, officers may even supply the names and signatures themselves and pass off a doctored inventory as legitimate, attaching it to the indictment as if compliance had been faithfully observed.

In drug prosecutions, the State bears the burden not only of proving the elements of the crime but also its corpus delicti — the dangerous drug itself. While a buy-bust operation has long been recognized as a valid and effective law-enforcement tool, its peculiar nature demands strict adherence to statutory safeguards.

The law requires meticulous compliance with the chain-of-custody rule to protect the rights of the accused and preserve the integrity of the evidence. This is a sober acknowledgment that anti-narcotics operations, and the ease with which evidence may be planted, create a real potential for abuse.

In the end, the constitutional declaration stands firm: I am innocent. And until the State proves otherwise beyond reasonable doubt — not by presumption, not by shortcuts, but by strict compliance with the law — that innocence must prevail.

For more of Dean Nilo Divina’s legal tidbits, please visit www.divinalaw.com. For comments and questions, please send an email to cad@divinalaw.com.