People v. Enriquez 1991 [G.R. No. 90738 December 9, 1991] Case Digest

 

·         People v. Enriquez 1991 [G.R. No. 90738 December 9, 1991]

Facts:

            The accused-appellant, Antonio Enrique, Jr. was charged before the Regional Trial Court of Aparri, Cagayan, Branch VII with violation of Section 4, Art. II in relation to Section 2, par (e), No. 1 and par. (1), Article I of RA No. 6425, as amended otherwise known as the Dangerous Drugs Act of 1972. Upon arraignment, the accused entered a plea of not guilty to the crime charged (Records, p. 67). After trial on the merits, the court rendered its decision finding the accused guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime charged.

            From the information supplied by the civilian informer whose Identity cannot be divulged for security reason that one alias Bong of Aparri, Cagayan was engaged in selling marijuana cigarettes, a team composed of Pat. Alejandro Quebalayan and Danilo Natividad, both of the 2nd Narcotic Unit, Regional Command, Tuguegarao, Cagayan and Pat. Porfirio Divina of the INP Aparri, Cagayan was organized. Pat Danilo Natividad acted as poseur buyer; A marked P10.00 bill with Serial No. CN-741017 was provided him as the buy money. At 2:45 P.M. on May 9,1988, the suspect Alias Bong was approached by Pat. Natividad. Bong handed something to Pat. Natividad who in turn handed the marked P10.00 bill; After confirming that the thing handed was a marijuana cigarette, Pat. Natividad gave the pre-arranged signal to the team headed by Pat. Quebalayan to close-in and effect his arrest.

            The petitioner contended that the evidence should have not been admitted by trial court since there was no confiscation receipt shown; that the admission of exhibits "A," "A-2," "B" to -B-5" and "C," was erroneous because the same were taken during custodial investigation and therefore, violative of the constitution; and that exhibit "A" should have been rejected because its serial number was neither alleged nor mentioned in the information.

 

Issue:

              Whether or not the admission made by the accused appellant is admissible in evidence when he was not assisted by council.

 

Held:

              NO. SC note however that, during the investigation, the accused-appellant, unassisted by counsel, wrote his name on the rolled marijuana cigarettes. Pat. Quebalayan testified that the accused affixed his name thereon voluntarily and that this gesture was intended as a security against substitution.  Yet, he and the other arresting officers exerts no efforts to inform the accused-appellant of his rights under custodial investigation. In effect, appellant's act amounted an admission of his culpability in violation of the constitution. Such admission is therefore inadmissible as evidence. Notwithstanding setback for the prosecution, appellant cannot be acquitted cause his conviction did not rest solely on his admission. He has completely failed to rebut by contrary evidence the testimonies and documentary evidence presented by the prosecution.

              Appellant completely misses the whole point of his prosecution and ultimate conviction under RA 6425. He was caught in flagrante delicto selling marijuana cigarettes to a poseur-buyer in exchange for money. Having been caught in the act of selling a prohibited drug, appellant's arrest was lawful under Rule 113 of the Rules of Court, Section 5(a), thereof The marked money and the marijuana cigarettes were immediately by the officers contrary to appellant's allegation that the same were taken during the custodial investigation. In fact, there was a receipt of the property seized items, from the accused-appellant by the officers and a copy thereof was him. The warrantless being an incident to a lawful arrest is itself lawful (People v. Claudio, G.R. No. 72564, April 15, 1988, 160 SCRA 646). Hence, whatever is found in the appellant's possession or in his control may be seized and used in evidence against him.