G.R. No. 72841 - Province of Cebu vs. Intermediate Appellate Court

The accused—Jose O. Duhan, Manuel Recla, and Roger Reyes—were charged with violating Section 4 in relation to Section 21, Article II of Republic Act No. 6425 (Dangerous Drugs Act of 1972, as amended) for the sale or offer for sale of prohibited drugs, specifically marijuana.
The case stemmed from an incident on June 29, 1982, in Manila where a confidential informer, described as an 18‐year-old lady, alerted the police that she could purchase marijuana from the suspects.
The police, using marked three ₱5.00 bills as payment, set in motion an operation involving surveillance and apprehension at the scene of the alleged drug sale.

Around 7:00 p.m. on June 29, 1982, the informer coordinated with police operatives from the Drug Enforcement Unit stationed at Police Station No. 5, Western Police District, Ermita, Manila.
The informer met with the suspects at a designated area where negotiations ensued; accused Recla was observed handing over the marijuana, while accused Duhan received marked money in exchange.

Post-transaction, police operatives—who were in civilian attire—immediately surrounded and arrested the three suspects.
During the subsequent processing:

The marked money was found in Duhan’s possession.
A stick of marijuana cigarette was discovered on Reyes when his wallet was searched.
The marijuana leaves and cigarette were sent to the NBI’s Forensic Division where tests confirmed their identity as marijuana.

The Booking and Information Sheets, prepared by Police Investigator Pfc. S. Bautista and signed by the accused, noted that after being informed of their right "to remain silent and to counsel," they allegedly admitted guilt but refused to give any additional written statement.

Appellants contested the prosecution’s evidence by presenting a different narrative:

The round-up took place during a police saturation drive at a corner in Malate, Manila, where the arrests were indiscriminate and the suspects were apprehended for “verification purposes.”
There was no initial search made upon arrest at the scene.

Claims of physical assault, with accused Recla and Reyes suffering beatings inside a private police vehicle.
Testimonies stating that a policeman planted a marijuana cigarette by forcibly inserting it into Duhan’s pocket and later into Reyes’ wallet.

Further, the accused and their family members, particularly the mother of Duhan, testified regarding the improper and coercive conduct of police officers, the tampering of evidence, and the extortion attempts (e.g., demanding money for release).

The prosecution’s lone eyewitness, Pat. Joves, implicated the accused but his accounts were later undermined by evidence and testimonies relating to police misconduct.
The presence of Mrs. Martha Oliva, Duhan’s mother, at the scene and her protestations against her son’s wrongful arrest underscored the defense’s version.

The recorded admissions on the Booking and Information Sheets were questioned as to their veracity and admissibility.
It was contended that even if verbal admissions had been made, they were tainted by the failure of the police to adequately inform the suspects of their constitutional rights.

Whether the prosecution was able to prove the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt, considering the conflicting accounts of the incident.

The validity and credibility of the prosecution’s evidence—particularly the marks of the drug transaction and the handling of the Booking and Information Sheets—were questioned.

Whether the constitutional rights of the accused, specifically the right to remain silent and the right to counsel, were duly observed by the police during custodial investigation.

The issue of whether the police investigator sufficiently explained the practical implications of these rights to an unlettered or less-educated suspect.

Whether the physical abuse and alleged planting of evidence by the police undermined the evidentiary basis for a conviction.

The reliability of the arrest and subsequent procedures, including the forced confessions and the absence of corroborative evidence from the police side, came under scrutiny.