FACTS:

Accused-appellant Jimmy Sapal and his wife, Maria Luisa Sapal, were charged with unlawful possession of three kilograms of marijuana. The charge against Maria Luisa Sapal was dismissed, and Jimmy Sapal pleaded not guilty. The prosecution presented witnesses who testified to the events leading to Jimmy Sapal's arrest and the discovery of the marijuana in their vehicle. The accused denied the charges and claimed to be a victim of a "frame-up", presenting witnesses who gave a different version of the events.

In addition to the drug possession charge, it was revealed that Jimmy Sapal was arrested after a buy-bust operation where he allegedly sold three kilograms of marijuana to the police. During the arrest, the police also confiscated Sapal's ATM cards and forced him to reveal the PIN numbers. They withdrew money from his Far East Bank account but the other ATM cards were eaten by the machines. Sapal was detained for four days before being brought to the police headquarters for inquest. At the headquarters, he initially refused to sign the documents but was threatened at gunpoint and eventually signed.

Three other individuals were also arrested and detained, claiming that they were coerced into admitting that illegal drugs were recovered from their group. Maria Luisa briefly saw her husband, Jimmy, during their detention at the Maples Inn. Two of the detained individuals were released after a conversation between Marlene's parents and the police.

During the trial, a motion was filed by Joel N. Go claiming ownership of a Toyota Corolla and stating that he had no involvement in the crime for which Jimmy Sapal was being tried.

The trial court found Jimmy Sapal guilty of illegal possession of marijuana and sentenced him to death. Sapal filed an appeal, arguing that the trial court erred in giving weight to the prosecution witnesses' testimonies and in finding him guilty beyond reasonable doubt.

Upon review, the appellate court found in favor of Sapal, noting that while law enforcers enjoy a presumption of regularity, this cannot outweigh the accused's right to be presumed innocent. The court highlighted circumstances that raised doubts about the credibility of the prosecution witnesses' testimonies.

ISSUES:

1. Whether the trial court erred in giving credence to the testimony of the prosecution witnesses.

2. Whether the trial court erred in finding the accused guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of illegal possession of marijuana.

3. Did the police authorities comply with the clear directive of the warrant of arrest, prepare the necessary documents relating to the arrest, and provide the accused with a counsel during the custodial investigation?

4. Did the law enforcers extort money from the accused?

5. Should the certification from the bank regarding the ATM withdrawals be considered as evidence even if it was not presented during trial?

6. Whether or not the testimonies of the defense witnesses should be given credence.

7. Whether or not the criminal complaint for arbitrary detention filed by the defense witnesses enhances the plausibility of their version of the events.

8. Whether or not the accused was singled out due to a standing warrant against him.

9. Whether or not the prosecution presented sufficient evidence to overcome the presumption of innocence.

10. Whether or not the accused should be acquitted based on reasonable doubt.

RULING:

1. The Court finds for the accused. The trial court erred in giving credence to the testimony of the prosecution witnesses. While law enforcers enjoy the presumption of regularity in the performance of their duties, this presumption cannot prevail over the constitutional right of the accused to be presumed innocent. The manner by which the law enforcers effected the arrest of the accused was highly irregular and suspect. Moreover, there were delays in preparing the necessary documents and in delivering the accused to the proper authorities, which cast doubt on the credibility of the prosecution witnesses. The trial court also erred in finding the accused guilty beyond reasonable doubt of illegal possession of marijuana.

2. The police authorities failed to comply with the clear directive of the warrant of arrest by Judge Barrios. They also had an undue delay in preparing the documents relating to the arrest and in delivering them to the proper authorities for inquest. Moreover, they failed to provide the accused with a counsel during the custodial investigation. These irregularities destroy the presumption of regularity in the performance of their duties and cannot be the sole basis for the conviction of the accused.

3. The irregularities mentioned above give credence to the allegations of the accused that the law enforcers extorted money from him. The accused testified that his ATM cards were confiscated and the correct PIN numbers were coerced from him. The certification from the bank shows that several ATM withdrawals were made from the accused's account on the day of his arrest, which strongly corroborates his testimony.

4. The certification from the bank regarding the ATM withdrawals was not presented during the trial but was submitted only as an attachment to the appeal brief of the accused. However, the Court cannot completely disregard this piece of evidence as it strongly supports the accused's claim of extortion.

5. The Supreme Court reversed and set aside the decision, acquitting the accused based on reasonable doubt. The Court held that the testimonies of the defense witnesses should be given credence, and the fact that they were friends with the accused and his wife does not make their testimonies unworthy of belief. The criminal complaint for arbitrary detention filed by the defense witnesses enhances the plausibility of their version of events. The Court also noted that the accused was singled out due to a standing warrant against him, but the marijuana found in the car could have belonged to any of the four passengers. Finally, the prosecution failed to present sufficient evidence to overcome the presumption of innocence.

PRINCIPLES:

• The presumption of regularity in the performance of duty of law enforcers cannot prevail over the constitutional right of the accused to be presumed innocent.

• Delays in preparing necessary documents and in delivering the accused to the proper authorities may cast doubt on the credibility of prosecution witnesses.

• Accused is deemed to have waived his right to question the irregularities attending his arrest if he fails to raise the same at the opportune time.

• The failure of law enforcers to comply with standard procedures and provide necessary safeguards during an arrest and custodial investigation may destroy the presumption of regularity in the performance of their duties.

• Procedural lapses or omissions by counsel during trial should not be imputed to the accused if the recommendation for that counsel came from court personnel.

• The court may consider evidence that was not presented during trial but is attached to the appeal brief if it strongly supports the accused's claims or allegations.

• Courts must be extra vigilant in trying drug charges to prevent the abuse of entrapment procedures or planting of evidence.

• Testimonies of defense witnesses should not be automatically disregarded solely because they are friends or acquaintances of the accused.

• Criminal complaints filed by defense witnesses can enhance the plausibility of their version of events.

• The presumption of innocence must be accorded to the accused. If the evidence does not fulfill the test of moral certainty and is insufficient to support a judgment of conviction, the accused must be acquitted.

• The circumstances must be evaluated, especially where multiple inferences can be drawn, with one being consistent with the presumption of innocence and the others being compatible with the finding of guilt. If the evidence is insufficient to overcome the presumption of innocence, the accused must be acquitted.