Title
People vs. Capulong
Case
G.R. No. 65674
Decision Date
Apr 15, 1988
Capulong convicted for selling marijuana in 1982 buy-bust operation; Supreme Court upheld trial court's decision despite inadmissible uncounseled confession.
buy bust operation
selling marijuana
law enforcement officers
A

Case Summary (G.R. No. 65674)

Proceedings in the Trial Court and the Information

The information charged Capulong with selling six (6) small transparent plastic bags of dried marijuana leaves for P50.00 to a poseur buyer without lawful authority and without being authorized by law. Capulong was arraigned and pleaded not guilty, and trial ensued. The RTC ultimately found him guilty beyond reasonable doubt and imposed the foregoing penalty and fine.

Factual Background: The “Buy Bust” Operation

On October 14, 1982, a special mission of the Constabulary Anti-Narcotics Unit composed of Sgt. Lino Jarilla (head), Sgt. Adjare Jasani, and Patrolman Reynaldo Resurreccion proceeded to Santissima Cruz, Santa Cruz, Laguna to conduct a “buy bust” operation against marijuana pushers. Their specific assignment was to locate Capulong, alleged to be the number one pusher in the locality. The team arrived at about 1:00 p.m., bringing an informant, Larry Estacio, whom they instructed to contact Capulong after which the team positioned itself at strategic places.

Estacio approached Capulong and pretended to buy marijuana leaves for himself. Capulong agreed to sell six (6) plastic bags of dried marijuana for P50.00, which Estacio paid. The transaction was allegedly observed by the three CANU officers. Immediately after Capulong received the marked money, the team arrested him. At the time of arrest, Bernardo Paynaganan was with Capulong and was also charged for violating Section 8, Article II of the Dangerous Drugs Act (noted as Criminal Case No. SC-2816 in the RTC).

At the time of arrest, the marked money was found in Capulong’s possession—a fifty peso bill with serial number JF 247521—while one stick of marijuana was found in the possession of Paynaganan. Capulong was brought to the headquarters at Calamba, Laguna, where he was investigated, and afterward he executed an extra-judicial confession admitting his guilt. A laboratory examination at the PC Laboratory later found that the bags contained dried leaves positive for marijuana.

Appellant’s Version and Issues Raised

Capulong presented a different narrative. He claimed that on October 14, 1982 at about 5:00 p.m., he and Paynaganan were at Aling Nelia’s store, watching a basketball game in a vacant lot. He alleged that Estacio, whom he described as drunk, arrived holding a P50.00 bill and asked whether they had marijuana; Capulong and Paynaganan allegedly replied that they did not. He stated that Estacio left but returned minutes later carrying six (6) plastic bags of marijuana and one (1) stick of marijuana. He claimed that Estacio gave the stick of marijuana to Paynaganan and then left. Capulong further claimed that Estacio later returned with CANU officials in a jeep, and Paynaganan and Capulong were immediately handcuffed.

Capulong also claimed that he was maltreated by investigators several times and that he was forced to sign an extra-judicial confession. He further asserted that his jewelry worth P3,000.00, his Adidas shoes worth P500.00, and his Zeppo lighter worth P80.00 were taken by investigator Lino Jarilla.

On appeal, Capulong raised two categories of issues: first, whether the extrajudicial confession was admissible despite alleged force, duress, and intimidation during its execution; and second, the credibility of witnesses.

Treatment of the Confession and the Effect of the 1987 Constitution

The Court noted that the records showed Capulong’s extrajudicial confession was made without the assistance of counsel. It then applied the pronouncements in People v. Benigno Pineda y Dimatulac (G.R. No. 72400, January 15, 1988), holding that the question of coercion became academic in light of changes in Article III, Section 12 of the 1987 Constitution, which provides that the rights of the accused, including the right to counsel, cannot be waived except in writing and in the presence of counsel. The Court explained that, regardless of voluntariness or the absence of coercion, a confession made without counsel assistance becomes inadmissible in evidence.

Credibility of Witnesses and Proof of Guilt

After examining the records, the Court sustained the RTC’s appreciation of the prosecution evidence and the defense. As to witness credibility, the Court reiterated the settled rule that the trial court’s findings are entitled to the highest respect because the trial court is in the best position to observe the witnesses’ demeanor and manner of testifying.

The Court found Capulong’s guilt proved beyond reasonable doubt. It held that Capulong was caught in flagrante delicto by CANU officers then on a mission to apprehend marijuana pushers in Santissima, Santa Cruz, Laguna, using an entrapment operation designed to catch the seller. The Court emphasized that the three CANU officers were eyewitnesses to the crime committed by Capulong. It gave credence to their narration because they were law enforcers and were presumed to have regularly performed their duty in the absence of proof of improper motives, citing People v. Gamayon, People v. Patog, People v. Natipravat, and People v. de Jesus.

The Court also noted that the record did not show that the officers who carried out the entrapment were motivated by improper motives other than the accomplishment of their mission.

Rejection of the Alleged Extortion or Pre-Planned Fabrication

Capulong alleged that he was the victim of a pre-planned extortion and attempted to support this theory by pointing to delays in filing: the complaint allegedly was filed only on October 20, 1982, six days after arrest; that it was filed without supporting documents; that affidavits were attached only on October 21, 1982; and that the marijuana leaves were allegedly submitted for laboratory examination only on October 27, 1982, or 13 days from his arrest and 7 days after the complaint was filed. He further alleged that these delays were intended to extort money from him and relatives, particularly his half-sister, whom he described as the common-law wife of a rich Chinese businessman.

The Court was not persuaded. It adopted the lower court’s reasoning that even assuming investigators extorted money, such extortion did not disprove the commission of the crime. The trial court had treated extortion as, in effect, an admission that there was a case to be fixed. It relied on testimony offered in support of the alleged extortion and on witness behavior inconsistent with Capulong’s theory. It noted that a defense witness testified that officers demanded P30,000.00, but that the case was already filed after the money was not raised. The trial court also observed that, while a witness claimed she sought to denounce the actuation of an officer, she did not want to be responsible for the suspension of the officer because of the anticipated effect on the officer’s poor economic condition and on her brother (Capulong). The trial court further noted that the same witness admitted knowing about the case filed on October 20 despite later statements and that she went to the officer’s place on October 24 but found him absent.

The Court also considered the defense witness testimony that the alleged inability to produce the demanded amount was attributable to being only a fisherman. Against these circumstances, the Court found no basis to credit Capulong’s extortion narrative as

...continue reading

Analyze Cases Smarter, Faster
Jur helps you analyze cases smarter to comprehend faster, building context before diving into full texts. AI-powered analysis, always verify critical details.

About Privacy Terms