People v. Policarpio
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: Operatives of the Narcotics Command, Camp Crame, organized by Lt. Col. Manuel T. Raval, received information that the accused, Romeo Policarpio y Miranda, alias Dupong, was engaged in the sale and distribution of marijuana and was tagged as the main source in the area. A buy-bust operation was planned, with Pat. Enrico Mangila posing as the buyer, armed with a marked P20.00 bill. At approximately 2:00 p.m. on June 16, 1984, the operatives proceeded to Bagong Bayan, Kalawaan, Darangan, Binangonan, Rizal. At about 5:00 p.m., Pat. Mangila and an informant located the accused in front of his house. The informant introduced Mangila to Policarpio as someone needing marijuana leaves. After a brief conversation, Policarpio handed Mangila two small plastic bags containing dried marijuana leaves and rolling paper, and in return, received the marked P20.00 bill. As pre-arranged, Mangila scratched his head, signaling his companions, Pfc. Basco and Mendiola, who then arrested Policarpio. The marked P20.00 bill was confiscated from his front pocket. Following his arrest, Policarpio led the operatives to his house, where they seized six additional small plastic bags of dried marijuana leaves and rolling papers contained in a bigger plastic bag marked "Tie Tae Toe," found on top of the refrigerator. Rogelio Policarpio, the accused's cousin, was also arrested at the scene. The confiscated marijuana leaves were subjected to laboratory examination, which yielded a positive result for marijuana. At the PC Headquarters, Romeo Policarpio signed a receipt acknowledging the confiscation of the six plastic bags of marijuana leaves and another receipt for the marked P20.00 bill. He also signed a sworn statement opting not to give a statement until represented by counsel. Procedural History: The Regional Trial Court of Rizal convicted the accused Romeo Policarpio y Miranda for violation of Section 4, Article II of Republic Act No. 6425, as amended, sentencing him to suffer the penalty of cadena perpetua and to pay a fine of P30,000.00. The accused appealed the decision. The Petition: The accused-appellant raised four assigned errors, primarily questioning the violation of his constitutional rights by the apprehending agents, the circumstances of his apprehension, the credibility of the prosecution witnesses, and his conviction for violating Republic Act No. 6425.
Issue(s)
Whether the receipts signed by the appellant acknowledging the confiscation of marijuana and the marked money are admissible in evidence despite allegations of violation of his constitutional rights. Whether the trial court erred in finding that the accused-appellant was apprehended in the act of selling marijuana and in failing to give credence to his testimony and that of his witness. Whether the trial court erred in finding the accused-appellant guilty of violating Section 4, Article II of Republic Act No. 6425 as amended.
Ruling
The Supreme Court affirmed the decision of the Regional Trial Court, finding the accused guilty beyond reasonable doubt of violating Section 4, Article II of Republic Act No. 6425, as amended. The penalty of cadena perpetua and the fine of P30,000.00 were upheld.
Ratio Decidendi
On the admissibility of the receipts (Exhibit G and F): The Court held that the receipts signed by the appellant acknowledging the confiscation of the marijuana and the marked P20.00 bill were inadmissible in evidence. These receipts were considered extra-judicial confessions obtained in violation of the appellant's constitutional right to remain silent and to counsel, as he was made to sign them without being fully informed of his rights and under circumstances that could be construed as a "clever ruse." The Court cited Section 20, Article IV of the 1973 Constitution, which prohibits compelling a person to be a witness against himself and mandates that any confession obtained in violation of this right is inadmissible. On the factual issues and credibility of witnesses: The Court reiterated the well-established rule that findings of fact of the trial court are conclusive and will not be disturbed on appeal unless there is a showing that some facts or circumstances of consequence may have been overlooked. The Court found no reason to depart from this rule. The appellant's defense that he was at a mahjong session and was pursued by the police was not given credence. The Court found the testimonies of prosecution witnesses Pat. Enrico Mangila and Pfc. Jose Basco to be credible, as they categorically attested to the fact that the appellant sold marijuana and received payment. The appellant failed to show any improper motive for these officers to testify falsely, and their testimonies were entitled to full faith and credence. The Court also noted that courts give significant credence to entrapping police officers, who are presumed to be performing their official duties regularly. On the conviction for violation of R.A. 6425: Despite the inadmissibility of the signed receipts, the Court found that there was ample evidence on record, independent of these receipts, to establish the commission of the offense by the appellant. The direct testimonies of the poseur-buyer, Pat. Mangila, and the arresting officer, Pfc. Basco, were sufficient to prove that the appellant sold marijuana. The Court emphasized the pernicious nature of drug addiction and the necessity of a relentless campaign to eradicate it, stating that peddlers of drugs are agents of destruction who deserve the maximum penalty.
Main Doctrine
Extra-judicial confessions obtained in violation of an accused's constitutional right to remain silent and to counsel are inadmissible in evidence. However, conviction may still stand if there is ample evidence on record, independent of the inadmissible confession, to establish the commission of the offense.