MURAO, JOSE PEPITO III

I. Article III Section 12, Extrajudicial Confessions (Exclusionary Rule/Violation of Rights):

People v. Arceo G.R. No. 92019

Facts:
On August 7, 1987, a buy-bust operation was organized by a mixed team of Filipino and American drug
enforcement officers to entrap herein accused-appellant Librado Arceo. According to special agent of Clark
Air Base Bob Reggio, Arceo has sold him prohibited drugs on two previous occasions hence, the buy-bust
operation to stop Arceo’s violation of R.A. 6425. When Arceo took the marked money from Bob in
exchange for two kilos of Marijuana leaves, the members of the back-up team quickly arrested Librado
Arceo. Upon his arrest, Arceo posited that the Marijuana leaves cam from Pancho Zapanta, his chief
supplier and that Pancho was waiting for Arceo in Arceo’s Angeles City apartment.
Thus, the drug enforcement officers quickly apprehended Zapanta in Arceo’s apartment and a body search
of the former yielded a telegram with the message: “Come tomorrow bring two at Jun’s (Arceo’s) apt.” The
prosecution later interpreted such as a request to bring the two kilos of marijuana leaves to Arceo’s
apartment that was the subject of the sale in which Arceo was entrapped.
For their defense, Arceo stated that he was merely inside Clark Air Base with friends when NARCOM
agents arrested him and that he was beaten and punched for more than a hundred times to confess to selling
marijuana. Zapanta meanwhile, asserts that he was a dealer of fighting cocks and the instruction retrieved
from him when he was apprehended was for the delivery of two fighting cocks.
The trial court convicted herein accused-appellants for violating the Dangerous Drugs Act of 1972,
specifically Art. II Section 4 on Sale of Prohibited Drugs.
Issue: W/N Librado Arceo’s unwritten extrajudicial confession was admissible in evidence?
Held:
NO. Art III Section 12 mandates the right to counsel upon the instance of a confession during custodial
investigation and the exclusion of the same when made without assistance of counsel and not in writing.
For Arceo’s case however, the testimonies of the police officers evidencing a valid buy-bust operation are
enough for his conviction.
However, for Zapanta, the extrajudicial confession of Arceo will not apply assuming that the same was
declared valid as such confessions are treated as hearsay for other accused. Moreover, the other
incriminating evidence of a telegram does not sufficiently refer to a drug transaction. Hence, the appealed
decision is MODIFIED, AFFIRMING Arceo’s conviction but ACQUITTING Zapanta.