FIRST DIVISION

[G.R. No. 69844. February 23, 1988.]

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, vs. ROMEO

POLICARPIO y MIRANDA, accused-appellant.

SYLLABUS

1. CONSTITUTIONAL LAW; RIGHT OF ACCUSED TO REMAIN SILENT

AND TO COUNSEL; VIOLATED IN CASE AT BAR; EXTRA-JUDICIAL CONFESSION
OBTAINED, NOT ADMISSIBLE. — What the records show is that appellant was
informed of his constitutional right to be silent and that he may refuse to
give a statement which may be used against him, that is why he refused to
give such a written statement unless it is made in the presence of his lawyer
as shown by the paper he signed to this effect. However, he was made to
acknowledge that the six (6) small plastic bags of dried marijuana leaves
were confiscated from him by signing a receipt and to sign a receipt for the
P20.00 bill as purchase price of the dried marijuana leaves he sold to Pat.
Mangila. Obviously the appellant was the victim of a clever ruse to make him
sign these alleged receipts which in effect are extra-judicial confessions of
the commission of the offense. Indeed it is unusual for appellant to be made
to sign receipts for what were taken from him. It is the police officers who
confiscated the same who should have signed such receipts. No doubt this is
a violation of the constitutional right of appellant to remain silent whereby
he was made to admit the commission of the offense without informing him
of his right. Such a confession obtained in violation of the Constitution is
inadmissible in evidence.
2. REMEDIAL LAW; EVIDENCE; FINDINGS OF FACT OF THE TRIAL
COURT GENERALLY CONCLUSIVE ON APPEAL. — The too-well known rule in
this jurisdiction is that the findings of facts of the trial court are conclusive in
this proceeding and will not be disturbed unless some facts or circumstances
may have been overlooked that may otherwise affect the result of the case.
The Court finds no reason to depart from this rule in the present case.
3. ID.; ID.; TESTIMONY OF WITNESSES; GIVEN FULL FAITH AND
CREDENCE; IMPROPER MOTIVE, NOT SHOWN. — While the Court now holds
that the receipts for the six (6) plastic bags of marijuana and the P20.00 bill
which appellant was made to sign are not admissible in evidence against
him, nevertheless there is ample evidence in the record other than these
receipts to establish the commission of the offense by the appellant.
Prosecution witnesses Pat. Enrico Mangila and Pfc. Jose Basco were present
and categorically attested to the fact that the appellant sold two (2) tea bags
of dried marijuana leaves to Mangila and received as consideration thereof
P20.00. While the appellant attempts to discredit the testimony of said police
officers, he has not shown any improper motive why they should testify in
the manner that they did. Thus their testimonies are entitled to full faith and
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2021 cdasiaonline.com
 credence. As a matter of fact courts give much credence to entrapping
police officers, as in this case, as they are presumed to be in the regular
performance of official duties.

DECISION

GANCAYCO, J : p

Convicted of violation of Section 4 Art. II of Republic Act No. 6425 as

amended in a decision of the Regional Trial Court of Rizal, the dispositive
part of which reading as follows:
"WHEREFORE, finding the accused guilty beyond a reasonable
doubt for Violation of Section 4. Article II of Republic Act 6425 as
amended, the court hereby sentenced the accused to suffer a penalty
of CADENA PERPETUA and to pay a fine of P30,000.00 without
subsidiary imprisonment in case of insolvency with costs against the
accused.
The accused shall be entitled to the full term of his preventive
imprisonment pursuant to Article 29 of the Revised Penal Code as
amended by Republic Act 6127, provided he abides by the rules
imposed upon convicted prisoners, otherwise, he shall only be entitled
to 4/5."

accused Romeo Policarpio y Miranda now interposed, this appeal to this

Court alleging that the trial court committed the following assigned errors:
"I

THE LOWER COURT SERIOUSLY ERRED IN NOT FINDING THAT

CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS OF THE ACCUSED-APPELLANT WERE
VIOLATED BY THE APPREHENDING NARCOTICS AGENTS.

II
THE LOWER COURT ERRED IN FINDING THAT ACCUSED-
APPELLANT WAS APPREHENDED IN THE ACT OF SELLING MARIJUANA,
OR IMMEDIATELY THEREAFTER, AND IN FAILING TO FIND THAT HE WAS
CHASED AND CAUGHT IN A RICEFIELD BETWEEN SITIOS BAGONG
BAYAN AND SAN JUAN AT DARANGAN, BINANGONAN, RIZAL.

III

THE LOWER COURT ERRED IN FAILING TO GIVE CREDENCE TO

THE TESTIMONY OF ACCUSED-APPELLANT AND HIS WITNESS ISIDRO
PARALEJAS.

IV

THE LOWER COURT ERRED IN FINDING ACCUSED-APPELLANT

GUILTY OF VIOLATING THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 4, ARTICLE 11 OF
REPUBLIC ACT 6425 AS AMENDED."

CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2021 cdasiaonline.com

 The facts of the case as found by the court a quo are as follows:
On June 16, 1984 at 2:00 o'clock in the afternoon, operatives of
the Narcotics Command, Camp Crame headed by P/Capt. Gabriel Paile
swooped down at Bagong Bayan, Kalawaan, Darangan, Binangonan,
Rizal, after receiving an information that the accused alias Dupons is
engaged in the sale and distribution of Marijuana and other prohibited
drugs and tagged as the main source at the area. The team was
organized earlier by Lt. Col. Manuel T. Raval, Commanding officer, 13th
NRU Narcotics Command and was dispatched to the target area to
entrap the accused Romeo Policarpio, accordingly, Pat. Mangila will
pose as a buyer and was handed the marked P20.00 bill (Exhibit "I" to
"I-3") with which to buy the stuff before they proceeded to the area of
operation. At about 2:00 p.m. same date, the operatives arrived at
Bagong Bayan, Kalawaan, Darangan, Binangonan, Rizal. Leaving their
vehicle at a distance, they posted themselves at strategic places. The
poseur buyer Pat. Enrico Mangila, together with the informant, looked
for the accused and at about 5:00 o'clock in the afternoon of same date
Pat. Mangila and the informant were able to locate the accused in front
of his house. Thereafter, Pat. Mangila was introduced by the informant
to the accused as the person who needs some marijuana leaves, and
after they had talked with the accused for a while, the accused gave
Pat. Mangila two small plastic bags containing dried marijuana leaves
and rolling paper (Exhibit "B" to "B-4"). In turn Pat. Mangila gave to the
accused the marked P20.00 bill (Exhibit "I" to "I-3"). As previously
arranged, Pat. Mangila scratched his head and his companions, Pfc.
Basco and Mendiola grabbed and arrested the accused. From the
accused was confiscated the marked P20.00 bill on his front pocket.
After the arrest of the accused, the latter led his captors to his house
and the operatives seized another six (6) small plastic bags of dried
marijuana leaves together with rolling papers contained in a bigger
plastic bag marked Tie Tae Toe (Exhibit "C" to "C-6") placed on a top of
the refrigerator at the kitchen of their house. Arrested with the accused
is a certain person Rogelio Policarpio, who turned out to be his cousin
and who was earlier convicted by this Court for Possession of Dried
Marijuana Leaves in Criminal Case No. 273-B of this Court. The accused
and the confiscated prohibited drugs were brought to Camp Crame and
the Marijuana leaves were turned over to the PCCL for examination
(Exhibit "D"). The PCCL conducted examination over the evidence thus
(sic) over, and rendered its Chemistry Report with the finding that the
evidence thus examined gave a positive result for the test for
marijuana (Exhibit "A" to "A-3"). At the PC Headquarters, the accused
Romeo Policarpio signed a bond paper acknowledging the that six (6)
small plastic bag of marijuana leaves were confiscated from him
(Exhibit "G" to "G-2"). He likewise signed a document acknowledging
the fact that the marked P20.00 bill was confiscated from him (Exhibit
"F" to "F-1"). Similarly, accused signed a sworn statement where he
opted not to give statement until he is represented by a counsel
(Exhibit "J" to "J-2").

Under the first assigned error appellant claims that Exhibit G which is a
receipt signed by appellant acknowledging that six (6) small plastic bags of
marijuana leaves were confiscated from him and Exhibit F a receipt signed
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2021 cdasiaonline.com
 by appellant acknowledging that the P20.00 bill involved in the purchase of
the marijuana leaves was confiscated from him are not admissible in
evidence as they were taken in violation of his constitutional right.
What the records show is that appellant was informed of his
constitutional right to be silent and that he may refuse to give a statement
which may be used against him, that is why he refused to give such a
written statement unless it is made in the presence of his lawyer as shown
by the paper he signed to this effect. 1 However, he was made to
acknowledge that the six (6) small plastic bags of dried marijuana leaves
were confiscated from him by signing a receipt 2 and to sign a receipt for the
P20.00 bill as purchase price of the dried marijuana leaves he sold to Pat.
Mangila. 3
Obviously the appellant was the victim of a clever ruse to make him
sign these alleged receipts which in effect are extra-judicial confessions of
the commission of the offense. Indeed it is unusual for appellant to be made
to sign receipts for what were taken from him. It is the police officers who
confiscated the same who should have signed such receipts. No doubt this is
a violation of the constitutional right of appellant to remain silent whereby
he was made to admit the commission of the offense without informing him
of his right. 4 Such a confession obtained in violation of the Constitution is
inadmissible in evidence.
The second, third, and fourth assigned errors are factual in nature
wherein the appellant raises the question of credibility of the witnesses and
reiterates his defense denying that he had been apprehended in the act of
selling marijuana and receiving P20.00 as payment thereof. He alleges that
he was then at a mahjong session and that he was pursued by the police
when they came.
The too-well known rule in this jurisdiction is that the findings of facts
of the trial court are conclusive in this proceeding and will not be disturbed
unless some facts or circumstances may have been overlooked that may
otherwise affect the result of the case. The Court finds no reason to depart
from this rule in the present case.
While the Court now holds that the receipts for the six (6) plastic bags
of marijuana and the P20.00 bill which appellant was made to sign 5 are not
admissible in evidence against him, nevertheless there is ample evidence in
the record other than these receipts to establish the commission of the
offense by the appellant. Prosecution witnesses Pat. Enrico Mangila and Pfc.
Jose Basco were present and categorically attested to the fact that the
appellant sold two (2) tea bags of dried marijuana leaves to Mangila and
received as consideration thereof P20.00. 6
While the appellant attempts to discredit the testimony of said police
officers, he has not shown any improper motive why they should testify in
the manner that they did. Thus their testimonies are entitled to full faith and
credence. 7 As a matter of fact courts give much credence to entrapping
police officers, as in this case, as they are presumed to be in the regular
performance of official duties. 8
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2021 cdasiaonline.com
 Drug addiction is one of the most pernicious evils that has ever crept
into our society. More often than not it is the young who constitute the
greater majority of the citizenry who are the victims. It is of common
knowledge that drug addicts become useless if not dangerous members of
society and in some instances turn up to be among the living dead. This is
the reason why the courts and law enforcement agencies should continue in
their relentless campaign not merely to minimize but to totally eradicate the
evil before it is too late. And everyone must be involved in this drive if we
are to succeed. The peddlers of drugs are actually agents of destruction.
They deserve no less than the maximum penalty.
WHEREFORE, the decision appealed from is AFFIRMED in toto with costs
against accused-appellant.
SO ORDERED.
Teehankee, C.J., Narvasa, Cruz and Griño-Aquino, JJ., concur.

Footnotes
1. Exhibits J to J-1.

2. Exhibit G.
3. Exhibit F.

4. Section 20 Art. IV of the 1973 Constitution provides as follows: "No person

shall be compelled to be a witness against himself. Any person under
investigation for the commission of an offense shall have the right to remain
silent and to counsel, and to be informed of such right. No force, violence,
threat, intimidation, or any other means which vitiates the free will shall be
used against him. Any confession obtained in violation of this section shall be
inadmissible in evidence."

Section 12(1), Article III of the 1987 Constitution also provides: "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."
5. Exhibit G and J.

6. TSN, November 5, 1984, pp. 3-12, September 24, 1984, pp. 4-14.
7. People vs. Alcantara, 126 SCRA 425 (1983); People vs. Zurbito, 151 SCRA
677 (1982).
8. Rule 131, Section 5(m) Rules of Court.

CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2021 cdasiaonline.com