Escolar Documentos
Profissional Documentos
Cultura Documentos
Roel Encinada
G.R. No. 116720. October 2, 1997
FACTS:
Prosecutions version
At 4 p.m. of May 20, 1992, SPO4 Nicolas Bolonia was in his house when
he received a tip that Encinada from Surigao City to Cebu City on board
M/V Sweet Pearl bringing marijuana in the morning of May 21, 1992.
Bolonia notified the members of his team. They alleged that because the
information came late, there was no more time to secure a search
warrant. At 8:15 a.m. of May 21, the ship finally docked. They saw
Encinada walk briskly down the gangplank, carrying two small colored
plastic baby chairs in his hand.
Encinada immediately boarded a tricycle. Bolonia chased it and ordered
the driver to stop. Bolinia identified himself, ordered Encinada to alight,
and asked the latter to hand over the plastic chairs. Between the stack of
chairs, there was a bulky package which appeared to be marijuana.
Encinada was brought to the police station. Bolonia, in the presence of
one Nonoy Lerio who is a member of the local media and a friend, opened
the package. The package was brought to PNP Crime Laboratory and the
forensic chemist, Vicente Armada, tested the leaves and confirmed it to
be marijuana (610 grams).
Defenses version:
Upon disembarking from the ship at around 8:00 am of May 21, he
proceeded to the Surigao PPA Gate and boarded a motorela bound for his
residence at Little Tondo. The Motorela was fully loaded with passengers
he was the 4th passenger.
The motorela was soon forcibly stopped by persons who ordered the
passengers to disembark, Thereafter, the passengers and the driver were
ordered to stand in a line for a body search. Encinada was singled
ordered to board the service vehicle of the police and was brought to the
Police Station.
He underwent a custodial investigation for which a plastic bag was
presented to him allegedly containing the subject marijuana leaves. He
denied that the plastic bag was his. Such was witnessed by Mr. Daniel
Nonoy Lerio, Jr. a member of the Surigao City Press.
On May 22, 1992, an information was filed by Prosecutor Virgilio M. Egay
charging Roel Encinada of illegal transportation of prohibited drugs under
Section 4 of Republic Act No. 6425, as amended by BP 179.
Upon his arraignment, appellant pleaded not guilty. The defense then
filed, with leave of court, a Demurrer to Evidence questioning the
This right has exceptions: (1) search incidental to a lawful arrest, (2)
search of moving vehicles, (3) seizure in plain view, (4) customs searches,
and (5) waiver by the accused themselves of their right against
unreasonable search and seizure. In these cases, the search and seizure
may be made only upon probable cause as the essential
requirement. Probable cause signifies a reasonable ground of suspicion
supported by circumstances sufficiently strong in themselves to warrant a
cautious mans belief that the person accused is guilty of the offense with
which he is charged
Encinada contended before the lower court that the warrantless search of
his belongings was illegal. But the trial judge rejected this and ruled that
he was caught in flagrante delicto; thus a warrantless search conducted
after his lawful arrest was valid and that the marijuana was admissible in
evidence.
Rule 113, Section 5, provides for warrantless arrest:
(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.
Also, evidence did not show any suspicious behavior when the Encinada
disembarked from the ship or while he rode the motorela.
As to the justification of the warrantless search, the Supreme Court
disagreed with the trial court. Even if the information was received by
Bolonia about 4:00 p.m. of May 20, 1992, there was sufficient time to
secure a warrant of arrest, as the M/V Sweet Pearl was not expected to
dock until 7:00 a.m. the following day. Administrative Circular No. 13
allows applications for search warrants even after court hours and as well
as Circular No. 19, series of 1987, entitled Amended Guidelines and
Procedures on Applications for Search Warrants for Illegal Possession of
Firearms and Other Serious Crimes Filed in Metro Manila Courts and Other
Courts with Multiple Salas.
As to the prosecutions contention that it was a consented search, the
transcript did not voluntarily consent to Bolonias search of his
belongings.
Q: By the way, when Roel Encinada agreed to allow you to examine the
two plastic chairs that he carried, what did you do next?
A: I examined the chairs and I noticed that something inside in between
the two chairs.
Silence should not be lightly taken as consent to such search. The implied
acquiescence to the search, if there was any, could not have been more
than mere passive conformity given under intimidating or coercive
circumstances and is thus considered no consent at all within the purview
of the constitutional guarantee.
Without the illegally seized prohibited drug, the Encinadas conviction
cannot stand. There is simply no sufficient evidence remaining to convict
him.
T
Sila TOTO at ang driver nasaan sila habang naririnig mong
umuungol ang conductor?
However, according to Temporas Pons said that the jeepney was owned
by his niece, Doris Wolf. Pons under Wolfs instructions borrowed from
Temporas the amount of P48,500.00 and used the jeepney as a
collateral. The amount was given to Pons in P10,000.00 cash and the
balance in a check payable to Wolf. Pons failed to pay the indebtedness.
T
Ano na ang nangyari matapos na dalhin ni TOTO ang driver at ni
DIGO naman ang conductor sa tobohan (sic)?
Temporas lodged a complaint against him for estafa before the NBI, who
then contacted the relatives of the owner of the jeepney. The relatives to
Camarines Sur, identified the jeepney and informed the NBI that its driver
Geronimo Malibago and conductor Andrew Patriarca, Jr. had been killed by
carnappers.
T
Noong kayo ay umalis sa tubohan na iyon, nasaan na noon ang
driver at ang conductor?
S
Mga ilang minuto lang po ay bumalik na sila sa sasakyan at kami
sumakay na at si TOTO ang nagmaneho ng sasakyan at tuloy-tuloy na kami
sa Bikol, sa Libmanan, Camarines Sur.
Wala na po.
Patriarca's widow filed a complaint with the NBI. Upon investigation, NBI
found that the carnapping was performed by four persons: Rene Januario,
Efren Canape, Eliseo Sarita alias Toto, and Eduardo Sarinos alias Digo, and
that the jeepney was disposed of through Cid. Januario and Canape, as
well as Cid, were arrested in Camarines Sur.
T
May napansin ka ba kina DIGO at TOTO noong sila ay sumakay sa
jeep galing sa tubuhan (sic)?
From the "oral investigation" they conducted at the Naga City NBI office
on March 27, 1988, it was found that Sarita and Sarinos took Patriarca
and Malibago inside a sugar plantation where presumably they were
killed. Because Januario and Canape volunteered that their companions
could be in Manila already, NBI team decided to take down their
statements at the NBI head office in Manila. NBI took the statements of
appellants one at a time. They asked Atty. Carlos Saunar, who was "just
around somewhere," to assist appellants during the investigation. Agent
Arlis Vela took the statement of appellant Januario while Supervising
Agent Toribio took that of Canape.
Januario did not know to whom the jeep was sold but he knew that Cid
approached Vicente Pons. The latter gave him P1,000 and rice and eggs
worth around P600. A second jeep was brought by Toto and Digo to Roger
Abajero. Later, the jeep was impounded at the NBI Naga City office.
S
Humihingal sila po na parang pagod at napansin ko na may dugo
ang kamay ni DIGO at ang damit at pantalon naman ni TOTO ay may tilamsik
(sic) ng dugo.
Januario signed and thumbmarked his statement which was sworn before
NBI Executive Director Salvador R. Ranin. It was also signed by Atty.
Carlos Saunar "as counsel."
According to Canapes statement:
T
Kung ganoon sabihin mo sa mga imbistigador na ito kung
paano ang buong pangyayari?
S
Kasi nuong (sic) minsan ako ay mapasyal sa Bgy. Crossing,
sakop ng Dasmarias, Cavite noong mga buwan ng Agosto 1987,
kami ay nagkita ng aking kaibigan na si TOTO' SARETA at ang
kanyang kasama na si DIGO (complete name unknown) at ako ay
kanyang sinabihan na humanap ng buyer ng isang jeep. Kaya, ng
(sic) ako ay umuwi na ng Libmanan, Camarines Sur ako ay
humananp (sic) ng taong interesado na bumili ng nasabing jeep,
katulung si RENE JANUARIO na taga bayan ng Libmanan. Ang
aming nakitang interesado sa jeep ay si SANTIAGO CID. Kaya ang
After the investigation, Canape and Januario went with the NBI agents in
searching for their companions.
After the prosecution offered evidence, the defense, through counsel,
manifested its intention to file a demurrer to evidence. Defense counsel
failed to appear at the scheduled hearing dates and to file the promised
demurrer to evidence, the court then issued an order stating that the
"accused may no longer at this time be allowed to present their Demurrer
to Evidence
Nevertheless counsel for the defense Claro mailed a "demurrer to
evidence or motion to dismiss on (sic) insufficiency of evidence but was
subsequently denied by the court finding that the demurrer did not
"contain any reason compelling enough to recall the previous order,"
disallowing the filing of said pleading. The court ordered the filing of
memoranda "as the case of accused Januario and Canupe was now
considered closed." It set the "partial promulgation of judgment" insofar
as the two accused are concerned. The defense also presented Cid as a
witness testifying that a certain Raul Repe, Toto Sarita and Digo Sarreal
approached him about the sale of the jeepney. He referred them to
Vicente Pons who he thought would buy the vehicle. He said he knew
Canupe and Januario but did not see them during the transaction for the
sale of the jeepney.
Atty. Saunar also testified. While he was in private practice, he was at the
NBI head office handling a client case when Atty. Vela, an NBI agent,
approached him and introduced him to Canupe, Januario and Cid; that
they had verbally confessed to participation in a crime and that they
Article III, Section 12 (1) of the Constitution requires that a person under
investigation for the commission of an offense shall have no less than
competent and independent counsel preferably of his own choice.
The Supreme Court found that Saunar was not the choice of Januario as
his custodial investigation counsel. Thus, NBI Agent Arlis Vela testified:
Q
xxx
xxx.
And it was the NBI who requested Saunar to assist Mr. Rene
Januario in the investigation?
It is also clear that prior to the execution of the sworn statements at the
NBI head office, Januario and Canupe had already made verbal
admissions of complicity in the crime. Verbal admissions, however,
should also be made with the assistance of counsel.
A
COURT:
All of them confessed?
A
Now, may we know from you why Atty. Saunar was present
there?
FISCAL VELAZCO:
Now, when they informed you that they intend to confess, now, did
you explain to them, to the accused or to the persons under
investigation the consequences of confessing?
A
Prosecutions version:
On February 27, 1990, David, an employer of Immaculata sent the latter
to Bangkok to canvass ready-to-wear clothes. David and Gomez followed
Immaculata about a week later. They stayed at apartment of one Lito
Tuazon. On 14 March 1990, Immaculata, Gomez and Aya Yupangco left
Bangkok and boarded Manila-bound flight. Gomez was on the same flight.
He checked-in two golfbags.
During the first week of February 1990, Cunanan told Gomez that he had
bought himself a golf set which Gomez could use in the Philippines. Soon,
Andy Bombao requested Gomez to also take with him another golf set for
Cunanan. Gomez left the U.S. for the Philippines on 26 February 1990. He
checked-in the two golfbags and a luggage. At the NAIA, Gomez was met
by David and Immaculata. The three proceeded to a house in Bicutan
where David took the golfbags and the dollars
In Manila, Gomez deposited the two golfbags with the interline baggage
room for his connecting flight from Manila to San Francisco via United
Airlines ("UAL") in the following morning, March 15. Before flight time on
15 March 1990, Romeo Dumag, a customs policeman at NAIA was
requested by Customs Collector Edgardo de Leon to help facilitate the
checking-in of Eduardo Gomez.
Gomez, David and Immaculata went to Batangas, where they stayed for
about two or three days, and soon Bicutan. Gomez was handed two plane
tickets, a PAL round-trip ticket to Bangkok (Manila-Bangkok-Manila) and a
UAL ticket for San Francisco, U.S.A.
ISSUE:
(1) Was there conspiracy?
(2) Was there a violation of Section 12(1), Article III, of the Constitution
(requires the assistance of counsel to a person under custody even when
he waives the right to counsel) on the part of Immaculatas statement?
HELD:
RTC decision on Felipe Immaculata was REVERSED and SET ASIDE on the
basis of reasonable doubt. Immaculata was RELEASED.
(1) No.
Conspiracy is deemed to arise -
should enjoy these constitutional rights, like anyone else, even when
abroad.
Under our laws, the onus probandi in establishing the guilt of an accused
for a criminal offense lies with the prosecution. The burden must be
discharged by it on the strength of its own evidence and not on the
weakness of the evidence for the defense or the lack of it. Proof beyond