David Gutang y Juarez v.
People of the PH situation in this case falls w/in the exemption under the freedom from
July 11, 2000 | De Leon, Jr. | Rights of Suspects – Uncounselled Confession
PETITIONER: David Gutang y Juarez
RESPONDENTS: People of the PH
SUMMARY/RECIT-READY:
On March 5, 1994, accused-appellant David Gutang along w/ Noel Regala, Alex
Jimenez, and Oscar de Venecia, Jr. were arrested by the PNP-NARCOM, in
connection w/ the enforcement of a search warrant in his residence in Greenhills,
San Juan. Marijuana and shabu were among those found and seized from
Gutang’s residence during the search. On the same day and immediately after
the search, Gutang and his companions were placed under arrest and brought to
the PNP Crime Lab at Camp Crame. They were tested for drug dependency, and
their urine samples all yielded positive results for presence of shabu. They were
charged and convicted guilty for illegal possession and use of prohibited drugs.
On appeal, the CA affirmed the trial court’s decision. Hence, this present
petition. The issues are W/N Receipts of Property Seized are inadmissible in
evidence, and W/N the urine samples taken are inadmissible in evidence. On
the first, the Court ruled in the affirmative. It has been previously held that the
signature of the accused found in a Receipt of Property Seized is inadmissible in
evidence if it was obtained w/out the assistance of counsel. Such signature on
such a receipt is a declaration against the accused’s interest and a tacit admission
of the crime charged against him. Hence, the signatures of Gutang on the subject
Receipts are inadmissible in evidence for being tantamount to an uncounselled
extra-judicial confession which is prohibited by the Const. On the second issue,
the Court resolved in the negative, holding that what the Const. prohibits is the
use of physical or moral compulsion to extort communication from the accused,
but not an inclusion of his body in evidence, when it may be material. In fact, an
accused may be compelled to be photographed or measured, or his garments or
shoes removed or replaced, or to move his body to enable these things to be
done, w/out violating the prohibition against testimonial compulsion. The
testimonial compulsion since what was sought to be examined came from the
body of the accused. Hence, the Court denies the petition and upheld Gutang’s
conviction.
DOCTRINE:
Signature of the accused in a Receipt of Property Seized
The signature of the accused found in a Receipt of Property Seized is
inadmissible in evidence if it was obtained w/out the assistance of counsel for
being tantamount to an uncounselled extra-judicial confession which is
prohibited by the Const.. Such signature on such a receipt is a declaration against
the accused’s interest and a tacit admission of the crime charged against him.
Body of the accused in evidence
What the Const. prohibits is the use of physical or moral compulsion to extort
communication from the accused, but not an inclusion of his body in evidence,
when it may be material. In fact, an accused may be compelled to be
photographed or measured, or his garments or shoes removed or replaced, or to
move his body to enable these things to be done, w/out violating the prohibition
against testimonial compulsion.
FACTS:
1. On March 5, 1994, accused-appellant David Gutang along w/ Noel
Regala, Alex Jimenez, and Oscar de Venecia, Jr. were arrested by the
PNP-NARCOM, in connection w/ the enforcement of a search warrant in
his residence in Greenhills, San Juan. The police found the Gutang and
his companions inside the bathroom of the master’s bedroom at the
second floor of his house.
2. The ff. materials, among others, were found during the search on top of a
glass table inside the master’s bedroom: shabu paraphernalia, suspected
marijuana fruiting tops, and suspected dried marijuana. An undetermined
amount of suspected shabu was also found by the police inside the car of
Regala, which was parked w/in the compound of Gutang’s residence.
 3.Results from the lab examinations showed that these were positive for
marijuana and shabu.
4. On the same day and immediately after the search, Gutang and his
companions were placed under arrest and brought to the PNP Crime Lab
at Camp Crame. They were tested for drug dependency, and their urine
samples all yielded positive results for presence of shabu.
5. They were then charged for violations of the Dangerous Drugs Act for
illegal possession and use of prohibited drugs. The trial court rendered
the decision convicting them guilty beyond reasonable doubt, except for
De Venecia, Jr. because the charge against him was dismissed on the
ground that he voluntarily submitted himself for treatment and rehab at
an accredited center by the Dangerous Drugs Board.
6. On appeal, the CA affirmed the trial court’s decision. Hence, this present
petition before the Court.
ISSUES:
1. W/N Receipts of Property Seized are inadmissible in evidence. [YES]
2. W/N the urine samples taken are inadmissible in evidence. [NO]
RATIO:
W/N Receipts of Property Seized are inadmissible in evidence. [YES]
1. On the first issue, petitioner Gutang contends that the trial court erred in
admitting in evidence the two Receipts of Property Seized (Exhibits “I”
and “R”), which described the properties or items that were seized from
the search, and which also contained his signature therein. He asserts that
said evidence are tantamount to having been derived from an
uncounselled extra-judicial confession, and thus, are inadmissible in
evidence.
2. The Court agrees w/ petitioner Gutang. Yes, the two Receipts of Property
Seized (Exhibits “I” and “R”) are inadmissible in evidence. It has been
previously held that the signature of the accused found in a Receipt of
Property Seized is inadmissible in evidence if it was obtained w/out the
assistance of counsel. Such signature on such a receipt is a declaration
against the accused’s interest and a tacit admission of the crime charged
against him. Hence, the signatures of Gutang on the subject Receipts are
inadmissible in evidence for being tantamount to an uncounselled extra-
judicial confession which is prohibited by the Const.
W/N the urine samples taken are inadmissible in evidence. [NO]
1. On the second issue, Gutang asserts that since he had no counsel during
the custodial investigation at Camp Crame when his urine sample was
taken and examined, the Chemistry and Physical reports are also
inadmissible as evidence since his urine was derived in effect from an
uncounselled extra-judicial confession. He claims that the taking of his
urine sample allegedly violated ART. III, Sec. 2 of the Constitution.
2. Here, the Court disagrees. The right to counsel begins from the time a
person is taken into custody and placed under investigation for the
commission of a crime, i.e., when the investigation officer starts to ask
questions to elicit information and/or confession or admissions from the
accused. Such right is protected by the Const. and cannot be waived
except in writing and in the presence of counsel.
3. However, what the Const. prohibits is the use of physical or moral
compulsion to extort communication from the accused, but not an
inclusion of his body in evidence, when it may be material. In fact, an
accused may be compelled to be photographed or measured, or his
garments or shoes removed or replaced, or to move his body to enable
these things to be done, w/out violating the prohibition against
testimonial compulsion. The situation in the case at bar falls w/in the
exemption under the freedom from testimonial compulsion since what
was sought to be examined came from the body of the accused.
DISPOSITION:
Petition is DENIED. Decision of the CA is AFFIRMED. Gutang’s conviction
remains.