Case Summary (G.R. No. L-59378)
Applicable Law and Charges
Statutory charge: Violation of Section 4, Article II in relation to Section 2(e), (f), (l), (m), and (o), Article I of Republic Act No. 6425, as amended (Dangerous Drugs Act).
Constitutional provision invoked: Section 20, Article IV of the Constitution in effect at the time (guarantee against self-incrimination; right to be informed of right to remain silent and to counsel; exclusion of confessions obtained in violation).
Controlling constitutional doctrine cited: Miranda v. Arizona and local precedents (People v. Ramos; People v. Caguioa) interpreting the requirement that custodial suspects be effectively informed of their rights and that any waiver be voluntary, knowing and intelligent.
Procedural Posture
The accused was convicted by the trial court (Court of First Instance of Manila, Branch VIII) of selling marijuana and was sentenced to reclusion perpetua and a P20,000 fine. The conviction was appealed, raising four principal assignments of error: (I) erroneous conviction under the cited provisions of R.A. 6425; (II) improper reliance on hearsay police testimony; (III) admission of evidence obtained in violation of constitutional rights; and (IV) violation of the accused’s confrontation and cross-examination rights.
Prosecution’s Factual Narrative
Police received complaints about illegal drug sales by an alias “Nel” at room 301 of the Commodore Pension House. After approximately one week of surveillance, an entrapment operation was organized using a confidential informant. The informant was furnished two marked P5 bills by Pfc. Joves and went to room 301. The informant allegedly handed the marked bills to the accused and received four sticks of marijuana cigarettes. The police then closed in, arrested the accused, frisked her, and recovered the marked money from her pocket and marijuana flowering tops wrapped in newspaper from another pocket. The accused orally admitted, according to police testimony, that she had sold the cigarettes and owned the marijuana items, but she refused to reduce her statement to writing.
Testimony Credibility and Key Inconsistencies
The prosecution’s primary eyewitness, Patrolman Joves, testified to seeing the sale, but his account contained material inconsistencies and equivocations. He first described a “small plastic bag” and then corrected himself to “four sticks of marijuana cigarettes,” and his testimony vacillated between portraying the transaction as public and “secret.” He acknowledged reliance on a prearranged signal from the confidential informant to effect the arrest. Other police officers present did not witness the sale; Policewoman Gomez’s testimony concerned events after the alleged sale, and Cpl. Guitan and Pat. Federes did not testify to observing the transaction. The confidential informant herself was not presented as a witness at trial.
Evidentiary Effect of the Unproduced Informant
The absence of the confidential informant as a witness led the Court to consider the presumption under the Rules of Court that evidence willfully suppressed would be adverse if produced. The prosecution’s failure to call the informant weakened the evidentiary foundation for establishing beyond reasonable doubt that the accused actually made the sale, particularly given the uncertainties in the police eyewitness testimony.
Constitutional and Miranda-related Issues with the Alleged Admission
The trial court relied in part on an alleged oral admission made during custodial investigation. The Court of Appeals (First Division) examined this in light of the constitutional guarantee against self-incrimination (as framed in Section 20, Article IV of the Constitution in effect) and the Miranda doctrine quoted in the decision. The Miranda principles require that custodial interrogation not be used by the prosecution unless procedural safeguards are shown to have been employed — specifically, that the person be warned of the right to remain silent, that statements may be used against them, and that they have the right to counsel, and that any waiver be voluntary, knowing, and intelligent.
Standard for Effective Advisal and Waiver
The decision emphasizes that the constitutional command “to be informed” entails more than a perfunctory recital of rights. The police must convey the practical effects of the rights in language the suspect understands; the degree and clarity of explanation required vary with the suspect’s education, intelligence, and personal circumstances. Where the suspect is unlettered or of limited education, the investigating officers must ensure a simpler and more lucid explanation so the suspect can comprehend and knowingly waive rights, if waiver is to be invoked.
Application of Constitutional Standards to the Present Case
Patrolman Joves’s testimony on the advisal was conclusory: he stated only that he “informed the accuse
...continue readingCase Syllabus (G.R. No. L-59378)
Citation and Procedural Posture
- Reported at 225 Phil. 248, decided by the First Division of the Supreme Court of the Philippines on February 11, 1986, under G.R. No. L-59378.
- Appeal from a judgment of the Court of First Instance of Manila, Branch VIII, which convicted the accused, Nelia Nicandro y Velarma, of violation of Section 4, Article II in relation to Section 2(e), (f), (l), (m), and (o), Article I, of Republic Act No. 6425, as amended (Dangerous Drugs Act).
- The trial court imposed the penalty of reclusion perpetua and a fine of P20,000.00.
- The Supreme Court, after reviewing the record and arguments, reversed and set aside the conviction and acquitted the appellant on the basis of reasonable doubt.
- The decision was concurred in by Justices Teehankee (Chairman), Melencio-Herrera, Gutierrez, Jr., De la Fuente, and Patajo, JJ.
Information and Formal Charge
- The information alleged that on or about November 6, 1981, in the City of Manila, the accused, not having been authorized by law to sell, deliver, give away or distribute any prohibited drug, willfully, unlawfully, and knowingly sold or offered for sale:
- four (4) sticks of marijuana cigarettes;
- marijuana flowering tops wrapped in a piece of newspaper;
- one (1) roach marijuana cigarette; and
- marijuana seeds and ashes contained in a white plastic bag.
- The information charged violation of Section 4, Article II, in relation to Section 2(e), (f), (l), (m), and (o), Article I of R.A. 6425, as amended.
Prosecution's Version of Facts (Overview)
- Prior to November 6, 1981, the Drug Enforcement Unit of Police Station No. 5, Western Police District, Manila, received complaints from concerned citizens about illegal sale and rampant use of prohibited drugs at the Commodore Pension House, Arquiza Street, Ermita, Manila, allegedly by a person known as alias "Nel".
- Police officers Cpl. Salvador Guitan and Pfc. Romeo Joves placed the Commodore Pension House and its surroundings under surveillance for about a week to verify the reports.
- After verification, an entrapment operation was organized using a confidential informant as buyer.
- On the evening of November 6, 1981, the police team was alerted to the presence of the alleged drug pusher, alias "Nel", at room 301 of Commodore Pension House.
- The confidential informant, accompanied by officers, went to room 301; upon a signal she knocked; the appellant opened the door and was asked to sell marijuana cigarettes.
- The informant handed the appellant two marked P5.00 bills (Exhibits "D" and "E" with initials "D-1" and "E-1") provided by Pfc. Joves.
- The appellant allegedly delivered four sticks of marijuana cigarettes to the informant.
- Immediately after the alleged delivery and after a pre-arranged signal, the police team closed in and apprehended the appellant.
Seizures, Exhibits and Physical Evidence
- During frisking after arrest, Pat. Aurora Gomez allegedly recovered from the right front pocket of appellant’s pants the two marked P5.00 bills (Exhs. "D" & "E").
- From the left pocket of appellant’s pants were allegedly taken marijuana flowering tops wrapped in a piece of newspaper.
- The prosecution presented Exhibits "D", "D-1", "E", and "E-1" as the marked money and testified as to the seized marijuana items.
- The informant who allegedly bought the marijuana was not presented as a witness at trial.
Testimony of Patrolman Romeo Joves (Prosecution’s Key Witness)
- Pat. Joves testified that he and his companions were hidden in the vicinity of Room 301 when the informant handed the two marked P5.00 bills to the accused.
- He testified that after the informant handed money, the accused handed the informant what he described first as a small plastic bag containing suspected marijuana leaves, and later corrected to four sticks of marijuana cigarettes.
- He testified a pre-arranged signal from the confidential informant confirmed the sale had occurred, whereupon the police arrested the appellant and identified themselves as police officers.
- Pat. Joves claimed to have conducted the custodial investigation: affirmed informing the accused of her constitutional rights, questioned her about the seized items and marked money, and testified that the accused orally admitted selling the four sticks and owning the marijuana flowering tops; he said the accused refused to reduce her confession to writing.
- Under cross-examination, Pat. Joves