002 MARCELO v. SANDIGANBAYAN (BALISONG) 4.!
The Sandiganbayan found Pasicolan and his co-conspirators,
26 January 1999 | Mendoza, J. | Admissibility; Signature during custodial
investigation
PETITIONER: Lito C. Marcelo
RESPONDENTS: The Hon. Sandiganbayan (First Division) and the People
of the Philippines
SUMMARY: Pasicolan, an employee of the Makati Post Office handed a
bag of mail matter to Romero and Marcelo who transferred the contents to
their travelling bag. NBI agents arrested them. They were asked to affix their
signatures on the envelopes to identify the letters as the very same letters
confiscated from them. The Sandiganbayan convicted Pasicolan, Romero,
and Marcelo of qualified theft. The issue is whether the signatures and the
letters are admissible in evidence. The Court held that while the signatures
are inadmissible, the letters themselves are not. These signatures are
evidence of admission obtained under custodial investigation because
Marcelo and Romero signed the envelopes following their arrest, without the
aid of counsel, thus they SHOULD NOT BE ADMITTED. The letters
themselves are admissible because they were validly seized as an incident of
a valid arrest. Marcelo was not conviceted merely on the basis of the
signatures found on the letters but on other evidence, i.e. the testimonies of
the NBI agents and other witnesses.
DOCTRINE: The accused must affix their signatures over object evidence
in the presence of a competent and independent counsel in order for the
signatures to be admissible in evidence, because such signatures constitute
admission when coupled with other testimonial and documentary evidence.
FACTS:
1.! Pasicolan, Romero, Aguinaldo and Marcelo were charged with
qualified theft for pilferage of mail matters. Pasicolan was an
emergency laborer assigned as bag opener in the Printed Matters
Section and Aguinaldo was a mail sorter of the Makati Post Office.
2.! During an NBI operation it was observed that Pasicolan alighted
from a postal delivery jeep with a mail bag. Pasicolan then gave the
mail bag to Romero and Marcelo. Marcelo transferred the contents of
the mail bag to a travelling bag. Pasicolan, Romero, and Marcelo
were arrested.
3.! They were asked to affix their signatures on the envelopes of the
letters in the presence of the members of the NBI. The NBI did this
in order to identify the letters as the very same letters confiscated
from them.
Romero and Marcelo, guilty of qualified theft. Only Marcelo appeled
the Decision, which appeal is the subject of this Petition.
ISSUE/s:
3.! Whether Marcelo is guilty of qualified theft. YES — What qualifies
theft is not conspiracy with a public officer, but the character of the
subject matter which is enumerated in Art. 310 of the RPC.
4.! Whether Marcelo was in conspiracy with a public officer, and thus
under the jurisdiction of the Sandiganbayan. YES — It was apparent
that Marcelo acted pursuant to a prior agreement when the mail bag
was given to him.
5.! Whether the signatures affixed on the envelopes are admissible in
evidence. NO — The signatures are evidence of admission obtained
from Marcelo obtained under circumstances contemplated in Art. III
§§12(1) & 17 of the Constitution, but without assistance of counsel.
6.! Whether the letters are admissible in evidence. YES — The letters
were validly seized following a lawful arrest.
RULING: WHEREFORE, the decision of the Sandiganbayan is
AFFIRMED.
RATIO:
Whether Marcelo is guilty of qualified theft
1.! Marcelo argued that since the subject of the alleged pilferage was
mail matter, only a government employee may be held guilty of
qualified theft unless a private individual was shown to have been in
conspiracy with him.
2.! What makes the theft of mail matter qualified is the fact that the
subject thereof is mail matter, regardless of whether the offender is a
postal employee or a private individual.
Whether Marcelo was in conspiracy with a public officer
3.! Marcelo contends that there is no proof that he conspired with a
postal employee.
4.! Conspiracy was proven in this case as Marcelo was instrumental in
transferring the contents of the mail bag which Pasicolan handed to
him and Romero to their travelling bag and that afterward, Marcelo
and Romero tied the bag to their motorcycle.
5.! Marcelo’s and Romero’s versions of what transpired were
incongruent. Marcelo claimed that he met Romero to watch a movie.
Romero claimed that Aguinaldo asked him to meet a person in
Makati who would give him an envelope to be delivered to an
unidentified person at BF Homes.
Whether the signatures affixed on the envelopes are admissible in evidence
1.! Marcelo contends that the signing of his name on the envelopes was
 not a mere mechanical act, but one which required the use of
intelligence and therefore constitutes self-incrimination.
2.! The doctrine in Beltran v. Samson that a person cannot be compelled
to give handwriting specimen in a prosecution for falsification is
different from the case at bar as no charge of falsification is at hand.
3.! NONETHELESS, the purpose for securing the signature of Marcelo
on the envelopes to authenticate the envelopes as the ones seized
from him and Romero, when coupled with the testimony of
prosecution witnesses that the envelopes seized from Marcelo and
Romero were those given to them by Pasicolan, undoubtedly
establish their guilt. Since these signatures are evidence of admission
obtained under custodial investigation because Marcelo and Romero
signed the envelopes following their arrest, without the aid of
counsel, they SHOULD NOT BE ADMITTED.
Whetehr the letters are admissible in evidence
4.! The letters themselves are admissible because they were validly
seized as an incident of a valid arrest. The letters can stand on their
own, being the fruits of a crime seized during lawful arrest. Marcelo
was not conviceted merely on the basis of the signatures found on
the letters but on other evidence, i.e. the testimonies of the NBI
agents and other witnesses.