Myline Cordial

People of the Philippines vs. Adoracion Sevilla y Joson @ Baby and Joel Gaspar y Cabral
G.R. No. 124077, September 05, 2000
339 SCRA 625

Violation: Section 8, Article II, Republic Act No. 6425 as amended by Republic Act No. 7659

FACTS:
The Provincial Officer of the Narcotics Command for the provinces of Aurora and Nueva Ecija disseminated to his confidential agents a list of suspected drug dealers. Among those in the list was Adoracion Sevilla who had a warrant for her arrest issued in Criminal Case No. 1317 for violation of Presidential Decree No. 6425.

In the afternoon of September 15, 1995, the Provincial Officer of NARCOM was informed by one of his confidential agents of the exact whereabouts of Sevilla. He immediately instructed one of his men to verify from the Central Intelligence Service (CIS) if the warrant of arrest issued in Criminal Case No. 1317 was still unserved. On being told that it was still unserved, he then coordinated with the CIS to effect the arrest of Sevilla. A composite team of four police officers from NARCOM and CIS was formed and proceeded to arrest Sevilla.

The police officers, who were in civilian clothes, were allowed inside the house by Sevilla herself who was seated at the sala. After the police officers had introduced themselves and stated their purpose, they conducted a search and allegedly saw a box containing four (4) bricks of dried marijuana leaves and flowering tops. They arrested Sevilla and her male companion, Julio Gaspar

During the trial, the testimonial evidence presented by the prosecution were conflicting such that the first prosecution witness to take the stand categorically declared that he noticed Gaspar ‘immediately and instinctively’ carted upstairs a medium-sized carton box when he learned that they were officers of the law while the other witness later disclosed that it was only upon receiving instructions from Sevilla that Gaspar carried the carton box upstairs. They also had conflicting narration on the manner in which entrance was effected in the house at Bantug Norte, how the warrant of arrest was served on Sevilla, the subsequent events which happened when Sevilla and Gaspar were taken into custody by the PNP and NARCOM officers and when and how the surveillance was undertaken on the person of Sevilla.

ISSUES:

1. Was the search valid?
2. What is the effect if testimonial evidence were conflicting and inconsistent?
3. How should an accused be appraised of his constitutional right?

RULING
1. No. The search conducted by the agents was illegal. There was no probable cause for conducting an extensive search in the house occupied by appellants. The truthfulness of the facts in support of probable cause is doubtful and the Court is of the impression that the search in question was not at all incidental to the lawful arrest of Sevilla but rather, pre-planned. Therefore, any evidence obtained in the course thereof must be excluded.

2. Conflicting accounts and improbabilities cast doubt over the credibility of the prosecution witnesses and veracity of their narrations. In People vs. Noay, the Court held that where the testimonies of key witnesses cannot stand together, the inevitable conclusion is that one or both must be telling a lie and their story a mere concoction

Moreover, where the inculpatory facts and circumstances are capable of two or more explanations or interpretations, one of which is consistent with the innocence of the accused and the other consistent with his guilt, the evidence does not meet or hurdle the test of moral certainty required for conviction. Consequently, the acquittal of appellants is indicated.

3. It was found that the appellants were not clearly informed of their constitutional rights to remain silent and to independent and competent counsel when they were arrested and investigated in connection with the offense charged. Simply stating the rights to which the arrestee is entitled to or reading the same to him did not suffice. Under the rulings of this Court, the right to be informed of one’s right contemplates the “transmission of meaningful information rather than just the ceremonial and perfunctory recitation of an abstract constitutional principle”. The right to be informed consists of no less than effective communication which results in a full understanding of what is conveyed.

‘“At the time a person is arrested, it shall be the duty of the arresting officer to inform him of the reason for the arrest and he must be shown the warrant of arrest if any. He shall be informed of his constitutional rights to remain silent and to counsel, and that any statement he might make could be used against him. The person arrested shall have the right to communicate with his lawyer, a relative or anyone he chooses by the most expedient means by telephone if possible, or by letter or messenger. It shall be the responsibility of the arresting officer to see to it that this is accomplished. No custodial investigation shall be conducted unless it be in the presence of counsel engaged by the person arrested, by any person on his behalf, or appointed by the court upon petition either of the detainee himself or by anyone on his behalf. The right to counsel may be waived but the waiver shall not be valid unless made with the assistance of counsel. Any statement obtained in violation of the procedure herein laid down, whether exculpatory or inculpatory, in whole or in part, shall be inadmissible in evidence.’

NOTES:

Exclusionary Rule
Evidence derived from an illegal search is placed beyond the Court’s consideration, as a practical means to enforce the constitutional injunction and to discourage violations of basic civil rights under the guise of legitimate law enforcement.-
To underscore the significance the law attaches to the fundamental right of an individual against unreasonable searches and seizures, the Constitution of this Republic succinctly declares under its Article III, Section 3(2) that “any evidence obtained in violation of this or the preceding section shall be inadmissible in evidence for any purpose in any proceeding.” Consequently, evidence derived from an illegal search is placed beyond the Court’s consideration, as a practical means to enforce the constitutional injunction and to discourage violations of basic civil rights under the guise of legitimate law enforcement.

Witnesses
The Court does not see its way clear to give full faith and credence to the prosecution evidence on hand. It is not unmindful of the settled doctrine that the assessment by the trial court of the credibility of the witnesses and their testimonies, as a rule, is binding on appellate courts, absent any fact or circumstance of weight and substance that had been overlooked, misapprehended or misapplied. In the present case, however, and for the reasons already advanced, the Court finds it proper to apply the exception rather than the general rule because although declarations of law enforcers are accorded weight, their testimonies, to be worthy of belief, must themselves be credible and not suspect.

Admissions and Confessions
The “confession” allegedly given by Gaspar during custodial interrogation must likewise be rejected for having been extracted without the assistance of counsel or a valid waiver of legal assistance. As a side note, it bears emphasizing that Gaspar did not execute a “confession”. More accurately, what the prosecution elicited from Gaspar was actually an “admission”, the difference being that in a “confession”, an accused acknowledges his guilt. There is no such acknowledgment of guilt in an “admission”

Full Text: People vs Sevilla G.R. No. 124077, September 05, 2000