Court presumes regularity in arrest of a drug suspect

The testimony of SPO1 Delos Santos was spontaneous, straightforward and categorical. Further, SPO3 Antonio, back-up security of SPO1 Delos Santos, corroborated the latters testimony on its material points. On the other hand, we find no reason to believe the denials and self-serving allegation of accused-appellant that his arrest was concocted out of thin air by the police officers. No evidence was presented to show any antagonism between him and the police officers to explain why the police officers allegedly picked on him. Settled is the rule that in cases involving violations of the Dangerous Drugs Act, credence is given to prosecution witnesses who are police officers for they are presumed to have performed their duties in a regular manner, unless there is evidence to the contrary suggesting ill motive on the part of the police officers or deviation from the regular performance of their duties. None was presented in the instant case.
Neither will the testimony of his 11-year old niece exculpate accused-appellant from the crimes charged against him. On cross-examination, April Jane admitted that her grandmother impressed on her that her uncle was arrested by the police even when he had done nothing wrong. As observed by the trial court, April Jane appeared to be a rehearsed witness. Further, being a close kin of accused-appellant, her credibility is highly suspect. A portion of her testimony is as follows: CROSS-EXAMINATION

Q Are you saying now Madam Witness that you [were] also discussing this case to (sic) your mother?
A Yes, sir.
Q When you discussed this case, Madam Witness, do I get you right that they were talking to you with respect [to] how your uncle was arrested?
A Yes, sir.
Q And, they [were] also discussing to (sic) you that your uncle has not committed any wrong?
A Yes, sir.
Q And, they were also discussing with you Madam Witness, that what was done by the policeman is also wrong?
A Yes, sir. (G.R. No. 169875; December 18, 2007)