PEOPE VS.

BARTE

FACTS: Eddie Barte was charged in the RTC with a violation of Article II, Section 5 of R.A.
9165 following his arrest for selling a quantity of shabu to a police officer-poesur buyer on
August 10, 2002 in Mandaue City. The prosecution presented PO2 Cabatingan who testified that
he and other police officers conducted the buy-bust operation at about 9:30 in the evening that
day. He identified the marked sachet of shabu and the money used in the operation. The accused
alleged that he was near the chapel of Basak when police officers arrived and arrested him.

The RTC found the accused guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime charged. The court gave
full credence to the testimony of PO2 Cabatingan. On appeal, the CA affirmed the decision in
toto.

ISSUE: WON the courts erred in finding the accused guilty beyond reasonable doubt?

RULING: YES. As a rule, the courts are cognizant of the presumption of regularity in the
performance of duties of public officers. However, this presumption may be overturned by
proving two things: (a) That they were not properly performing their duty; or (b) That they were
inspired by an improper motive. Based on the facts of the case, a surveillance was made
following a tip from a caller that drugs were being sold. However, such surveillance was
unrecorded, and no proof was presented to coroborate the policemen’s conclusion that the
accused was the perpetrator.

It is a matter of judicial notice that buy-bust operations are susceptible to police abuse, the most
notorious of which is its use as a tool for extortion. This is the exact reason why safeguards were
embodied in Section 21 of R.A. 9165. The non-compliance of the police officers with the
procedure under Section 21 of R.A. 9165 is fatal to the entrapment.

Thus, the accused was acquitted.