22. People v.
Casimiro including the receipt of property seized without the assistance
G.R. No. 146277 June 20, 2002
TOPIC: INSTANCES OF CUSTODIAL
INVESTIGATION
Summary:
This case is an instant appeal assailing the decision of
the Regional Trial Court (RTC) in finding the accused
Casimiro guilty of violating RA 6425. He allege that there was
an insufficient amount of evidence to prove his guilt beyond
reasonable doubt. The SC agrees with this allegation saying
that one such infirmity is the inadmissible “Receipt of Property
Seized” because it was signed by the accused without the
assistance of a counsel
Doctrine:
A receipt of property seized signed without the
assistance of counsel is inadmissible in Court and is presumed
to have been obtained through coercion.
Facts:
This case is an instant appeal assailing the decision of
the Regional Trial Court (RTC) in finding the accused
Casimiro guilty of violating RA 6425. The NarCom of Baguio
City acting on an information from an informer conducted a
buy-bust operations. During that operations PO2 Supa acting as
a poseur-buyer allegedly bought from the accused a brick of
marijuana for Php 1,500.00. After the alleged transaction was
completed PO2 Supa and the other agents of the NarCom
arrested Casimiro and brought him to the NarCom Office in
Baguio City where he was asked to sign various documents
of counsel.
Relevant Issue:
Was the receipt legally obtained so as to render it
admissible as evidence?
Ruling: No
Ratio:
The receipt could not be considered evidence against
accused-appellant because it was signed by him without the
assistance of counsel. Art. III, §12(1) of the Constitution
provides:
Any person under investigation for the commission of
an offense shall have the right to be informed of his right to
remain silent and to have competent and independent counsel
preferably of his own choice. If the person cannot afford the
services of counsel, he must be provided with one. These rights
cannot be waived except in writing and in the presence of
counsel.
The receipt states that a brick of dried marijuana leaves
was delivered by the suspect to a poseur buyer and signed by
accused-appellant Albert Casimiro as "suspect/ owner." In
effect, the accused admitted that he delivered a prohibited drug
to another, which is an offense under the law. Having been
made without the assistance of counsel, it cannot be accepted
as proof that marijuana was seized from him. It is inadmissible
in evidence.
In People v. Obrero, the Court held that an uncounseled
statement is presumed by the Constitution to be
psychologically coerced. Swept into an unfamiliar environment
and surrounded by intimidating figures typical of the
atmosphere of a police interrogation, the suspect needs the
guiding hand of counsel. Thus it cannot be said that, in signing
the receipt without a lawyer, the accused acted willingly,
intelligently, and freely.