People v. Macario Diamsay y Pagba
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: On February 3, 1983, a buy-bust operation was conducted by a PC-INP Anti-Narcotics Team based on information that a certain individual was selling marijuana cigarettes near Mayhaligue Street, corner Rizal Avenue, Sta. Cruz, Manila. CIC Victor Ibarra posed as a buyer and, using marked bills, arranged to purchase marijuana cigarettes from the accused, identified as Macario Diamsay y Pagba (MAR). MAR left to get the marijuana from his supplier, Freddie, and returned with 20 sticks of marijuana cigarettes, which he handed to Ibarra. Upon Ibarra's signal, the team moved in to arrest MAR. MAR attempted to grab the marijuana from Ibarra, causing some of the cigarettes to fall. MAR was apprehended, but the P40.00 marked bills were not found on his person. MAR pointed to Freddie as his supplier. The 20 sticks of marijuana were found positive for marijuana. MAR gave an extrajudicial statement to Pfc. Leano, admitting to selling the marijuana. Procedural History: The Regional Trial Court of Manila, Criminal Case No. 83-15268, found the accused, Macario Diamsay y Pagba, guilty beyond reasonable doubt of violating the Dangerous Drugs Act and sentenced him to life imprisonment and a fine of P20,000.00. The trial court relied heavily on the accused's extrajudicial confession, finding it voluntary and corroborated by the testimonies of the arresting officers. The Petition: The accused appealed his conviction, primarily challenging the admissibility and voluntariness of his extrajudicial confession.
Issue(s)
Whether the extrajudicial confession of the accused is admissible in evidence. Whether the prosecution sufficiently proved the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt.
Ruling
The Supreme Court acquitted the accused-appellant. The Court ruled that the extrajudicial confession was inadmissible due to the violation of the accused's right to counsel during custodial investigation. Without the confession, the remaining evidence was insufficient to establish guilt beyond reasonable doubt.
Ratio Decidendi
On the admissibility of the extrajudicial confession: The Court held that the extrajudicial confession of the accused was inadmissible in evidence. The records showed that the accused was not assisted by counsel when he was informed of his constitutional rights and when he allegedly waived his right to counsel and gave his statement. The constitutional mandate requires that any waiver of the right to counsel must be made with the assistance of counsel. Since this procedure was not followed, the confession obtained was invalidated. The Court explicitly stated, "On account alone of the fact that the accused-appellant was not, at the time he allegedly waived his right against self-incrimination, assisted by counsel, the alleged confession is invalidated." The Court further emphasized that any statement obtained in violation of the prescribed procedure for custodial investigation shall be inadmissible in evidence. On whether the prosecution sufficiently proved guilt beyond reasonable doubt: The Court found that without the inadmissible extrajudicial confession, the prosecution's case consisted of "plain accusations and say-so's by CIC Victor Ibarra" and the collective testimony of law enforcers. The Court noted that the prosecution's evidence was merely the "word against the accused's, and vice versa." Given the strong presumption of innocence enshrined in the Constitution, the Court held that the evidence presented by the prosecution was not sufficient to overcome this presumption and establish guilt beyond reasonable doubt. The Court reiterated the rule that an extrajudicial confession is not sufficient ground for conviction unless corroborated by evidence of corpus delicti, but even with such corroboration, the confession must first be admissible. In this case, the primary evidence (the confession) was tainted with constitutional infirmity, leaving the prosecution's case without sufficient proof.
Main Doctrine
An extrajudicial confession, even if corroborated by evidence of corpus delicti, is insufficient for conviction if obtained in violation of the accused's constitutional rights, particularly the right to counsel during custodial investigation.