FIRST DIVISION
[G.R
No. 134056. July 6, 2000]
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee,
vs. ROBERT FIGUEROA and BEATRICE VALERIO, accused.
ROBERT FIGUEROA, accused-appellant.
D E C I S I O N
DAVIDE,
JR., C.J.:
Accused-appellant ROBERT FIGUEROA
(hereafter OBET) appeals from the 18 May 1998 Decision[1] of the Regional Trial Court of
Parañaque City, Branch 259, in Criminal Case No. 97-306, convicting him of
violation of Section 14-A[2], Article III of R.A. No. 6425, otherwise
known as the Dangerous Drugs Act of 1972, as amended by RA. No. 7659. His
co-accused Beatrice Valerio (hereafter Betty) was acquitted.
OBET and Betty were indicted
under an information, dated 2 April 1997, whose accusatory portion reads as
follows:
That on 16 February 1997 and for
sometime prior thereto in Parañaque City and within the jurisdiction of this
Honorable Court, the above-named accused without authority of law, conspiring,
confederating and helping one another, did then and there, wilfully, unlawfully
and feloniously manufacture, produce, prepare or process methamphetamine
hydrochloride or shabu, a regulated drug amounting to a 2.4 liters, directly by
means of chemical synthesis.
CONTRARY TO LAW.[3]
When arraigned OBET and Betty
each entered a plea of not guilty.[4] Trial on the merits then ensued.
The witnesses presented by the
prosecution were NBI Forensic Chemist Mary Ann T. Aranas, NBI Special
Investigator III Pio M. Palencia (hereafter PALENCIA), and NBI Intelligence
Agent II Martin Soriano (hereafter SORIANO).
PALENCIA testified that on 15
February 1997, he was in the office of SORIANO at Project 6, Quezon City, when
they received a call from their informant, a woman, who reported that a certain
OBET was allegedly engaged in large-scale drug trafficking in Makati City.
PALENCIA and SORIANO forthwith instructed their informant to establish contact
with OBET for a buy-bust operation. After several hours, the informant reported
that OBET was already waiting for her at No. 1485 Soliman Street, Makati City,
with instructions for her to come alone as soon as she was ready with P150,000.
PALENCIA then caused the dusting of fluorescent powder over ten pieces of
authentic P100 bills as buy-bust money and gave them to the informant.[5]
On board a taxi, PALENCIA,
SORIANO and their informant proceeded to the rendezvous area. They arrived at
half past twelve o'clock in the early morning of 16 February 1997. As the gate
was already open, the informant entered the premises, while PALENCIA and
SORIANO discreetly crawled and positioned themselves near the gate of
the house. Strategically positioned, PALENCIA overheard OBET ask the informant
whether she had the money. PALENCIA then saw the informant hand over the money
to OBET. While counting the money, OBET sensed the presence of other people in
the area. OBET, who was in possession of a .45 caliber pistol, fired it twice
toward the direction of PALENCIA, while hurrying towards the house. OBET then
held hostage his mistress, Estrella Brilliantes, and her two children for the
next three hours until the arrival of one Major Roberto Reyes to whom OBET
surrendered. PALENCIA and SORIANO brought OBET, his firearm and the recovered
buy-bust money to the WPD Headquarters for recording purposes and, thereafter,
to the NBI Headquarters.[6]
At the NBI Headquarters, PALENCIA
and SORIANO methodically interrogated OBET about the source of his shabu. OBET
eventually volunteered that his source was a certain Betty of 263 El Grande
Street, B.F. Homes, Parañaque City. PALENCIA and SORIANO took OBET to Betty's
house as a follow-up operation. They arrived at around 6:00 a.m. of the same
day, 16 February 1997. As OBET called Betty earlier to tell her that he was
arriving, Betty already had the gate opened for them. After parking, PALENCIA
saw Betty waiting for them. Upon seeing OBET in handcuffs, Betty asked what
happened. OBET replied that he was just caught in a buy-bust operation.
PALENCIA and SORIANO then tried to convince Betty to surrender the shabu that
OBET insisted was hidden inside the house. As Betty persistently denied the
existence of the shabu, PALENCIA told OBET to confer with Betty. After a while,
OBET proceeded to the kitchen of the guesthouse located outside the main house,
followed by Betty. OBET then promptly pointed to what he termed as liquid shabu
inside a white pail along with other drug paraphernalia, such as a beaker
spray. PALENCIA and SORIANO seized the items.[7]
Thereafter, PALENCIA requested a
laboratory examination of all the seized items and an ultraviolet light
examination over the persons of OBET, Betty and a certain Eva Baluyot.[8] PALENCIA claimed that based on the
certification issued by the Forensic Chemistry Division of the NBI, all the
items seized from Betty's residence were positive for methamphetamine hydrochloride
except specimen no.7; while from among the persons subjected to ultraviolet
light examination, only OBET was found positive for fluorescent powder.[9]
On cross-examination, PALENCIA
admitted that he and SORIANO conducted the search without a search warrant, but
with the consent of Betty.[10] He also admitted that he did not
actually see OBET or Betty in the act of manufacturing shabu.[11]
NBI Intelligence Agent II SORIANO
corroborated PALENCIA's testimony. He likewise admitted that the custodial
investigation of OBET, during which he divulged Betty as the source of shabu,
was conducted in the absence of any counsel. SORIANO also confirmed PALENCIA's
testimony that they were not armed with a search warrant, but that they
conducted the follow-up operation at Betty's house under the hot pursuit
theory.[12] He further maintained that OBET,
after conferring with Betty, uttered, “Ako na nga, ako na
nga"(I will do it, I will do it). OBET then proceeded to the dirty
kitchen, pointed to the refrigerator and had it moved. Thereafter, SORIANO saw a plastic pail containing liquid with floating
brown substances.
SORIANO admitted that he and
PALENCIA neither witnessed OBET and Betty manufacture shabu in the manner
described in Section 2(j) of the Dangerous Drugs Act[13]; nor did they possess evidence,
independent of the items they had seized, that OBET and Betty were engaged in
the labeling or manufacturing of shabu.[14]
Forensic Chemist Mary Ann T.
Aranas testified that on 16 February 1997, she conducted a laboratory
examination for the presence of any prohibited or regulated drug on eleven
different specimens (Exhibits "B"-"L").[15] The result of the examination
disclosed that all the specimens except specimen no. 7 (Exhibit "H")
were positive for methamphetamine hydrochloride.[16] She further observed that specimen
no. 8 (Exhibit I- I-2), the brown liquid with floating solid flakes contained
in a plastic pail, was positive for epedrine,[17] a substance used in the manufacture
of methamphetamine hydrochloride. She opined that this crude form of shabu
would have to undergo chemical processes, like extraction, crystallization,
distillation, before it could be finally converted into shabu's crystalline
form. She also conducted a fluorescent powder examination over the persons of
OBET and Betty. Only OBET gave a positive result.[18]
On the other hand, OBET testified
that while he was watching television on the night of 15 February 1997, he
heard the doorbell rang. Upon seeing Eva Baluyot, his childhood friend, he
opened the door for her. Inside the house, Eva handed him a bundle of money and
stated that she was buying shabu from him. OBET emphatically told Eva that he
was not engaged in such illegal trade and returned the money. OBET then
accompanied Eva out of the house. At the garage, OBET noticed someone peeping
from the dark; so he told Eva to go back inside the house with him. Eva ignored
the request. OBET thus left Eva at the garage and got his .45 caliber gun from
his house. While he was locking the door, his handgun accidentally fired off, as
he forgot that it had already been cocked. This blast was followed by shouts of
people outside claiming that they were NBI men. Uncertain, OBET did not go out of the house but instead told the
alleged NBI men to call the Makati Police, specifically Major Reyes. The NBI
agents, however, persisted in convincing OBET to go out of the house. He did
get out of his house after three hours when he heard the voice of Major Reyes.
OBET gave to Major Reyes his gun. The Makati Police and the NBI men thereafter
conducted a joint search inside OBET's house which, however, yielded nothing.
OBET was then brought to the Makati Police Headquarters where the incident was
recorded. Thereafter, PALENCIA, SORIANO and another NBI man brought OBET
to the house of Betty, his former live-in partner, at El Grande Street, B.F.
Homes, Parañaque City, upon the insistence and information of Eva Baluyot.[19]
Upon entering B.F. Homes, SORIANO
instructed OBET to call and tell Betty that he was already near. The gate was
already opened when they arrived, and the NBI men freely parked their car at
the garage. Then, PALENCIA and SORIANO alighted from the car and entered
Betty's house. OBET was left in the car under the charge of the third NBI man;
hence, he knew nothing of what happened inside Betty's house.[20]
For her part, Betty admitted that
she was romantically involved with OBET and had a child by him. She recalled
that on 16 February 1997, OBET called at around 6:00 a.m. and requested her to
open the gate for him, as he was already near. She ran down to the garage and
opened the gate. Since her car was parked halfway through the garage, she went
to the main house to get her car keys to make way for OBET's car. But as she
came out of the main house, OBET's car was already parked inside the garage.
She noticed that OBET had two companions with long firearms. The two, whom
Betty later found out as NBI men PALENCIA and SORIANO, informed her that they
had just come from a buy-bust operation and that OBET had led them to her house,
as there were illegal chemicals kept in the premises. Shocked andamazed, she
then asked for a search warrant, but the NBI men could not produce any.[21]
Betty further recalled that the
NBI men claimed that they found contraband items near the dirty kitchen at a
small space behind the refrigerator where cases of softdrinks
were stored. Betty denied any knowledge that there were illegal chemicals
inside her house and that these were manufactured into shabu. She also denied
knowing Eva Baluyot.[22]
On cross-examination, Betty
disclaimed her alleged consent to the search of her house, for she specifically
asked the NBI men for a search warrant. She asserted that she did not see the
NBI men find the shabu paraphernalia because she went up to the second floor of
her house. She only saw that the NBI men were bringing several items out of her
house.[23]
The trial court agreed with the prosecution's theory that the
warrantless arrests of OBET and Betty were conducted within the purview of
valid warrantless arrests enumerated in Section 5,[24] Rule 113 of the Rules of Court. It
then ruled as valid the consented warrantless search conducted at the house of
Betty. Consequently, it found that the very items seized by the NBI agents at
the kitchen of Betty's guesthouse were admissible as the corpus delicti of the violation of Section 14-A of the Dangerous Drugs
Act. Thus, the trial court "believed" that the paraphernalia seized
were indispensable to the processing or manufacturing of shabu into
crystallized form. Although it conceded that the prosecution witnesses did not
actually see the crystallization processes, the trial court observed that the
Dangerous Drug Act does not require that there be actual manufacturing
activities at the time of the seizure.
The trial court, however, acquitted Betty for failure of the
prosecution to adduce evidence that she, in conspiracy with OBET, manufactured
shabu without the requisite authority. It did not arrive at a similar
conclusion as far as OBET was concerned, but declared that based on the
evidence on record, OBET's guilt of the crime charged was proved beyond
reasonable doubt. Thus, in the decision of 18 May 1998 the trial court decreed
as follows:
WHEREFORE, finding the evidence
insufficient to warrant the conviction of accused Beatrice Valerio y del
Rosario for Violation of Sec. 14-a of Article III of R.A. 6425 as amended by
R.A. 7659, this court pronounces her NOT GUILTY and considering that she is
detained at the NBI the NBI is directed to immediately release her from custody
unless there be some reasons for her detention. Finding, however, accused
Robert Figueroa GUILTY as charged [of] the same offense in the absence of any
mitigating or aggravating circumstances, this Court hereby sentences him to
suffer the penalty of Reclusion Perpetua and to pay a fine of P500,000.00 and
to suffer the accessory penalties provided by law, specifically Art. VI [sic]
of the Revised Penal Code.
The Clerk of Court is directed to
prepare the Mittimus for the immediate transfer of Robert Figueroa to the Bureau
of Corrections in Muntinlupa City.
SO ORDERED.
Unsatisfied with the verdict,
OBET appealed the decision to us. He principally premises his prayer for
acquittal on the failure of the State to show by convincing evidence that
shortly prior to or during custodial investigation, he was apprised of his
constitutional rights to remain silent, to have a competent and independent
counsel preferably of his own choice, and to be informed of such rights. He
asserts that he did not waive those rights. Thus, whatever admissions were
allegedly extracted from him are inadmissible in evidence. Even assuming that
his extrajudicial statements were admissible, Betty's acquittal would work in
his favor because the indictment is based on conspiracy. In a conspiracy, the
act of one is the act of all. Therefore, the acts imputed to him were also the
acts of Betty, and vice versa. Since the trial court considered insufficient
for conviction the acts of Betty, then he, too, should be acquitted.
In the Appellee's Brief, the
Office of the Solicitor General (OSG) maintains that not all warrantless
searches and seizures are illegal. For
one, a warrantless search and seizure is not unreasonable and offensive to the
Constitution if consent is shown. In this case, the prosecution convincingly
proved that Betty consented to the search of her house. With her consent,
Betty validly waived her constitutional right against unreasonable searches and
seizure. Consequently, the items seized in her house by virtue of the consented
search are admissible in evidence against her and OBET.
The OSG also contends that the
acquittal of Betty does not per se work to absolve OBET of the crime
charged. Betty's believable disavowal of the location of the paraphernalia and
other circumstances on record reasonably indicative of her innocence cannot
redound in favor of OBET. The latter apparently knew the exact location of the
hidden paraphernalia. By such disclosure, it is not far-fetched to conclude
that OBET had been actually engaged in the manufacture of shabu.
We first resolve the question of
whether Betty's acquittal would benefit OBET.
We disagree with the theory of
OBET that in an indictment based on conspiracy, the acquittal of a conspirator
likewise absolves a co-conspirator from criminal liability. Indeed, the rule is
well-settled that once a conspiracy is established, the act of one is the act
of all, and each of the conspirators is liable for the crimes committed by the
other conspirators.[25] It follows then that if the
prosecution fails to prove conspiracy, the alleged conspirators should be held
individually responsible for their own respective acts. Accordingly, OBET's
criminal liability in this case must be judged on the basis of his own acts as
established by the quantum of proof required in criminal cases.
We should then determine whether
the prosecution was able to establish beyond reasonable doubt OBET's guilt for
unauthorized manufacture of shabu, a regulated drug.
After a meticulous review of the
records and of the evidence adduced by the parties in this case, we find
that what PALENCIA and SORIANO did left much to be desired, thereby
resulting in a bungled prosecution of the case. The evidence for the
prosecution miserably failed to prove OBET's guilt of the offense charged.
The buy-bust operation was a
failure because no shabu or other regulated or prohibited drug was found in
OBET's person and residence. No evidence was adduced to show that OBET handed
shabu over to the informant. Yet, he was placed in custody. For what offense he
was held in custody does not, initially, appear very clear on the record.
It was established that OBET
fired two shots toward the direction of PALENCIA and SORIANO and held hostage
his mistress and her two children. Yet he was not placed under custodial
investigation for such crimes as grave threats, coercion, illegal possession of
firearms, or crimes other than that with which he was charged.
On the contrary, OBET was held in
custody and investigated or interrogated about the source of the shabu, none of
which was found during the buy-bust operation. In short he was held in custody
as a consequence of the failed buy-bust operation and as a follow-up to link
him to the source and establish a conspiracy in the illegal trade of shabu.
Allegedly, he admitted that the source was Betty. On the basis of that
admission, PALENCIA and SORIANO, together with OBET, proceeded to the residence
of Betty. Needless to state, OBET cannot be investigated for anything in
relation to shabu while under custody without informing him of his rights to
remain silent and to have a competent and independent counsel preferably of his
own choice. Any waiver of such rights should be in writing and made in the
presence of a counsel pursuant to Section 12 (1)[26], Article III of the Constitution.
It has been held that these rights attach from the moment the investigation
starts, i.e. when the investigating officers begin to ask questions to
elicit information and confessions or admissions from the suspect.[27]
It is always incumbent upon the
prosecution to prove at the trial that prior to in-custody questioning, the
confessant was informed of his constitutional rights. The presumption of
regularity of official acts does not prevail over the constitutional
presumption of innocence.[28] Hence, in the absence of proof that
the arresting officers complied with these constitutional safeguards,
extrajudicial statements, whether inculpatory or exculpatory, made during
custodial investigation are inadmissible and cannot be considered in the
adjudication of a case.[29] In other words, confessions and
admissions in violation of Section 12 (1), Article III of the Constitution
are inadmissible in evidence against the declarant and more so against third
persons.[30] This is so even if such statements
are gospel truth and voluntarily given.[31] Such statements are useless except
as evidence against the very police authorities who violated the suspect's
rights.[32]
SORIANO admitted that the
custodial investigation of OBET was conducted without the presence of a lawyer,
and there is no proof that OBET waived said right and the right to remain
silent. No waiver in writing and in the presence of a counsel was presented.
Thus, pursuant to paragraph 3 of Section 12 of Article III of the Constitution
any admission obtained from OBET in the course of his custodial investigation
was inadmissible against him and cannot be used as a justification for the
search without a warrant.
The search conducted on Betty's
house was allegedly consented to by Betty. Indeed, a consented search is one of
the exceptions to the requirement of a search warrant. In People v. Chua
Ho San @ Tsay Ho San,[33] we pointed out that:
This
interdiction against warrantless searches and seizures, however, is not
absolute and such warrantless searches and seizures have long been deemed permissible
by jurisprudence in instances of (1) search of moving vehicles, (2) seizure in
plain view, (3) customs searches, (4) waiver or consented searches, (5) stop
and frisk situations (Terry search), and (6) search incidental to a lawful
arrest. The last includes a valid warrantless search and seizure pursuant to an
equally valid warrantless arrest, for, while as a rule, an arrest is considered
legitimate if effected with a valid warrant of arrest, the Rules of Court
recognize permissible warrantless arrest, to wit: (1) arrest flagrante
delicto, (2) arrest effected in hot pursuit, and (3) arrest of
escaped prisoners.
In case of consented searches or
waiver of the constitutional guarantee, against obtrusive searches, it is
fundamental that to constitute, a waiver, it must first appear that (1) the
right exists; (2) that the person involved had knowledge, either actual or
constructive, of the existence of such right; and (3) the said person had an
actual intention to relinquish the right.[34] The third condition does not exist
in the instant case. The fact is, Betty asked for a search warrant, thus:
Q And of course, these NBI Special
Investigators informed you of their purpose is that correct?
A Yes sir.
Q And of course believing that there was
nothing in your house you acceded?
A No sir, I was asking for a search warrant.
Q And what was their reply?
A They did not have any but that Figueroa had
led them to the property.[35]
Neither can the search be appreciated as a search incidental to a
valid warrantless arrest of either Betty or OBET as intimated by the trial
court. First, Betty's arrest did not precede the search. Second, per the
prosecution's evidence OBET was not arrested for possession or sale of
regulated or prohibited drugs as a consequence of the buy-bust operation. He
surrendered after taking hostage Estrella and her two children, although he was
thereafter held in custody for further questioning on illegal drugs.
There is no showing that the
house occupied by Betty and the articles confiscated therefrom belong to OBET.
That OBET pointed to PALENCIA and SORIANO the places where the articles were
found provides no sufficient basis for a conclusion that they belonged to him.
Even if the articles thus seized actually belonged to him, they cannot be
constitutionally and legally used against him to establish his criminal
liability therefor, since the seizure was the fruit of an invalid custodial
investigation.
WHEREFORE, in view of all the foregoing, the 18 May 1998
Decision of the Regional Trial Court, Branch 259, Parañaque City, convicting
herein accused-appellant Robert Figueroa of violation of Section 14-A, Article
III of the Dangerous Drugs Act, as amended, is hereby REVERSED and SET ASIDE.
He is hereby ACQUITTED of the crime charged, and ORDERED immediately
released from confinement or detention unless his continued detention is
warranted by virtue of a valid legal cause. The Director of the Bureau of
Corrections is directed to submit within five (5) days from receipt of a copy
of this decision a report on the release of accused-appellant.
Costs de oficio.
SO ORDERED.
Puno, Kapunan, Pardo, and Ynares-Santiago, JJ., concur.
[1] Rollo, 20-37.
Per Judge Zosimo V. Escano.
[2] The
Sections reads:
Sec. 14-A. Manufacture of Regulated Drugs. – The
penalty of reclusion perpetua to death and a fine ranging from five
hundred thousand pesos to ten million pesos shall be imposed upon any person
who, unless authorized by law, shall engage in the manufacture of any regulated
drug.
[3] Rollo, 13.
[4] Original Record (OR), 52.
[5] TSN, 8 September 1997, 7-17.
[6] TSN, 8 September 1997, 26-49.
[7] Id., 50-69.
[8] TSN, 8 September 1997, 93.
[9] Id., 89-97.
[10] Id., 133-135.
[11] Id., 148.
[12] TSN, 20 October 1997, 78-80.
[13] Sec. 2(j) “Manufacture” – means the production, preparation,
compounding or processing of a dangerous drug either directly or indirectly or
by extraction from substances of natural origin, or independently by means of
chemical synthesis or by a combination of extraction and chemical synthesis,
and shall include any packaging, or repacking of such substance or labeling or
relabeling of its container; except that such terms do not include the
preparation, compounding, packaging, or labeling of a drug or other substance
by a duly authorized practitioner as an incident to his administration or
dispensing of such drug or substance in the course of his professional
practice.
[14] TSN, 20 October 1997, 83-84.
[15] TSN, 11 August 1997, 11-24.
[16] Id., 25-26.
[17] Id., 26.
[18] OR, 96.
[19] TSN, 10 December 1997, 7-20.
[20] Id., 22-25.
[21] TSN, 9 February 1998, 13-16.
[22] TSN, 9 February 1998., 17-19.
[23] Id., 28-32.
[24] It
reads:
Sec.
5. – Arrest, without a warrant; when lawful – A peace officer or a
private person may, without a warrant, arrest a person:
(a) When, in his presence, the person to
be arrested has committed, is actually committing, or is attempting to commit
an offense;
(b) When an offense has in fact just been
committed, and he has personal knowledge of facts indicating that the
person to be arrested has committed it;
and
(c) When the person to be arrested is a
prisoner who has escaped from a penal establishment or place where he is
serving final judgment or temporarily confined while his case is pending, or
has escaped while being transferred from one confinement to another.
[25] People v. Veronas, 179 SCRA 423, 427 (1989);
People v. Enriquez, 281 SCRA 103 (1997); People v. Cariquez, G.R.
No. 129304, 27 September 1999.
[26] It
reads:
Sec. 12. (1) Any person
under investigation for the commission of an offense shall have the right to be
informed of his right to remain silent
and to have competent and independent counsel preferably of his own
choice. If the person cannot afford the
services of counsel, he must be provided with one. These rights cannot be waived except in writing and in the
presence of counsel.
[27] People v. Rivera, 245 SCRA 421, 431 (1995)
[28] People v. Wong Chuen Ming, 256 SCRA 182 (1996)
[29] See People v. Nolasco, 163 SCRA 623 (1988);
People v. Lim, 196 SCRA 809 (1991); People v. Javar, 226 SCRA 103
(1993); People v. Januario, 267 SCRA 608 (1997); People v. Santos, 283
SCRA 443 (1997)
[30] See People v. Ramirez, 169 SCRA 711, 719
(1989)
[31] People v. Agustin, 240 SCRA 541, 556-557
(1995)
[32] People v. Ramirez, supra note 30.
[33] 308 SCRA 432, 444 (1999)
[34] Id., 450, citing People v. Burgos, 144
SCRA 1 (1986)
[35] TSN, 9 February 1999, 28-29.