People V Macabalang

1019
People v. Macabalang
G.R. No. 168694
November 27, 2006
Art. III, 12
FACTS:
Appellant was charged before the RTC for violation of Section 15, R.A. 6425, by selling
and distributing to a poseur buyer about 1,972.6 grams of shabu, a regulated drug. Upon
arraignment, appellant pleaded not guilty.
The facts, establishing the case against the appellant, was testified to by the following:
PO1 Christopher Guste (PO1 Guste), the poseur-buyer; PO1 Ronnie Fabia (PO1 Fabia), member
of the buy-bust operation team; Chief Inspector Leonardo Suan (Inspector Suan), head of the
buy-bust team; and Senior Inspector Sonia S. Lodovico, a Forensic Chemist.
On 21 July 1999, at around 9:00 oclock in the morning, Inspector Suan, Deputy Chief of
the Intelligence Division of Narcotics Command, received a report from a confidential informant
that a certain Amin was looking for a buyer of shabu. Inspector Suan instructed his informant to
contract with Amin for two (2) kilos of shabu.
Two (2) hours later, a fourteen-man buy-bust team was formed by Inspector Suan, with
PO1 Guste acting as poseur-buyer. After the briefing, Inspector Suan gave PO1 Guste two (2)
genuine P1,000.00 bills, marked with letters "CG" and boodle money amounting to
P1,000,000.00.
At 6:00 oclock in the evening of the same day, the team proceeded to the fourth level
parking lot of SM City, North Avenue, Quezon City, the meeting place designated by appellant.
They observed the area for two (2) hours and positioned themselves within the vicinity. PO1
Guste stayed outside the car with the informant while the others were inside their separate
vehicles.
Two hours thereafter, a Mitsubishi Lancer car, with Plate No. UTD 147, approached the
parking lot. Appellant alighted from the car. PO1 Guste and the informant approached him and
appropriate introductions were made. Appellant then went to a green Toyota Corolla car, parked
next to his car, bearing Plate No. WBH 491. He opened the rear compartment, took out a yellow
box, and gave it to PO1 Guste. When appellant asked for the money, PO1 Guste invited the latter
over into his own car, which was parked about ten (10) meters away. Upon reaching his car, PO1
Guste checked the contents of the box and found two (2) plastic bags containing white crystalline
substance. He immediately gave the money to appellant and stepped out of the car. As a prearranged signal to his police companions to close in, PO1 Guste removed his cap. The rest of the
team members converged to where PO1 Guste, the informant and appellant were situated,
introduced themselves as policemen, and apprehended appellant.
Appellant was brought to the Narcotics Command (Narcom) office at Camp Crame,
Quezon City for investigation. PO1 Guste executed an affidavit narrating the incident. The carton
containing shabu and the boodle money were turned over to the investigator. On the following
day, the confiscated carton containing two (2) plastic bags was brought to the PNP Crime
Laboratory, where they were examined by Forensic Chemist Sonia S. Lodovico. The test results
confirmed that the white crystalline substance sold by appellant was shabu, weighing a total of
1,972.6 grams.
ISSUE:
Prepared by: Mary Louise M. Ramos
1019
Whether accuseds right to counsel was violated

RULING:
Admittedly, it is settled that the signature of the accused in the "Receipt of Property
Seized" is inadmissible in evidence if it was obtained without the assistance of counsel. The
signature of the accused on such a receipt is a declaration against his interest and a tacit
admission of the crime charged. However, while it is true that appellant signed receipt of the
property seized unassisted by counsel, this only renders inadmissible the receipt itself.
In fact, in the case at bar, the evidentiary value of the Receipt of Property Seized is
irrelevant in light of the ample evidence proving appellants guilt beyond reasonable doubt. The
prosecution was able to prove that a valid buy-bust operation was conducted to entrap appellant.
The testimony of the poseur-buyer clearly established that the sale of shabu by appellant was
consummated. The corpus delicti, which is the shabu, was presented in court and confirmed by
the other members of the buy-bust team. They acknowledged that they were the same drugs
placed in two (2) plastic bags seized from appellant.
Besides, the prosecution did not present in evidence any receipt of property seized
relating to the shabu confiscated from the appellant. Appellant may have testified as to having
signed such receipt, but it was not introduced in evidence. What was presented before the Court
was a receipt attesting to the seizure from the appellant of two vehicles he was in possession at
that time of his arrest, and not that of a shabu in question. Considering that appellant is charged
with the sale of shabu, and not of those vehicles, any irregularity that would have attended the
signing of the receipt would bear no relevance to the crime for which appellant was charged.
Prepared by: Mary Louise M. Ramos

People V Macabalang

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

People V Macabalang

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

People V Macabalang

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

1019

Whether accuseds right to counsel was violated

Prepared by: Mary Louise M. Ramos

You might also like