Scribd
Upload
58 views

270 SCRA 432 - March 26, 1997 V, J.:: People of The Philippines v. Gomez

The Supreme Court of the Philippines ruled that an uncounseled confession made by a Filipino citizen in Hong Kong was inadmissible in court. The Court held that under the Philippine Constitution, any person under investigation has the right to remain silent and to have counsel, and this right applies even when abroad. The Court also found there was insufficient evidence that the appellant conspired to commit the crime, as conspiracy requires proof of intentional design between cohorts. The petition was ultimately dismissed.

Uploaded by

Kenneth Taguiba
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
58 views

270 SCRA 432 - March 26, 1997 V, J.:: People of The Philippines v. Gomez

The Supreme Court of the Philippines ruled that an uncounseled confession made by a Filipino citizen in Hong Kong was inadmissible in court. The Court held that under the Philippine Constitution, any person under investigation has the right to remain silent and to have counsel, and this right applies even when abroad. The Court also found there was insufficient evidence that the appellant conspired to commit the crime, as conspiracy requires proof of intentional design between cohorts. The petition was ultimately dismissed.

Uploaded by

Kenneth Taguiba
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
You are on page 1/ 2

People of the Philippines v.

Gomez
270 SCRA 432 | March 26, 1997
VITUG, J.:

Doctrine
Section 12 (1) are rights guaranteed for any Filipino citizen to exercise even when abroad.
Conspiracy to be the basis for a conviction, should be proved in the same manner as the criminal
act itself. It is also essential that a conscious design to commit an offense must be established.

FACTS
 Gomez and Immaculata were implicated in the crime of transporting heroin estimated to
be worth $40,000,000.
 On Feb 27, 1990, David, Immaculata’s employer, sent the latter to Thailand to canvass
ready to wear clothes. A week later, David and Gomez followed Immaculata to Thailand.
 March 14, 1990, the three of them boarded a flight bound for Manila. In Manila, Gomez
deposited two golf bags with the interline baggage room for his connecting flight to San
Francisco. Well before flight time, Dumag, a customs policeman at NAIA, was requested
to help facilitate the checking in of Gomez. Dumag proceeded to the baggage room and
retrieved the baggages, to acknowledge the release, he signed to the “unclaimed
baggage/transit list”.
 Dumag then proceeded to Patio, Manila, a restaurant in NAIA, where he turned over to
Customs Collector, De Leon the travel papers of Gomez. However, Gomez failed to
board the flight to San Francisco. The two golf bags were off loaded from the aircraft. At
4pm that same day, PAL staff, Mendoza, brough the bags to the check in counter for
check up. Aviation Security Squadron of the Philippine Air Force Security Command
(PAFSECOM) opened the bags and found 31 single packs of heroin with a total weight
of 20.1159kg. The examination of PAFSECOM was witnessed by the NAIA manager, a
representative of the UAL and other customs personnel.
 Initial reports of the PAFSECOM traced Gomez as the owner of the golf bags.
Immaculata and Gomez denied having to do with the confiscated bags. Immaculata said
that he was hired by David to be a “stay in driver” and was sometimes asked to do special
errands for him. While Gomez said that he only met David for the first in 1986 in a plane
from the Philippines to Los, Angeles, USA. He further stated that he was asked if he was
interested in bringing in some dollars to the Philippines which he later agreed to do. A
certain Cunanan told Gomez that he could use in the Philippines his golf set and a few
weeks later, one Andy Bombao requested him to also take another golf set for Cunanan.
 Gomez left the US for the Philippines and he checked in two golf bags. At the NAIA, he
was met by David and Immaculata. The three then went to Bicutan where David handed
to Gomez, two roundtrip plane tickets to Bangkok and a UAL ticket for San Francisco.
Davis sent Immaculata to Bangkok to canvass clothes, then Gomez and David followed,
bringing with them two golf bags.
 David returned to Manila earlier than Gomez and he was instructed by David that a
certain Aya Yupangco should not be allowed to look into the golf bags because they
contained precious jewels.
 At the NAIA, Gomez was met by David but the former was informed that the could not
take the flight for San Francisco. Then Gomez called up his stepfather, who advised him
to surrender himself to the American Authorities. Gomez surrendered to the Drug
Enforcement Agency (DEA) of the US in Manila. The DEA in turn, surrendered him to
the NBI.
 Meanwhile, Immaculata was imprisoned in Hongkong because of an expired visa while
he travels with David. He was visited by NBI agents for his implication in the "heroin"
case, of which he denied the accusation. Later, he agreed, without the assistance of
counsel, to execute a sworn statement at the Stanley Prison. After his prison term,
Immaculata was deported to Manila. Eventually, Gomez and Immaculata were then
convicted by the RTC which made them file for notices of appeal. In his appeal,
Immaculata insists that the trial courthas erred in including him in the drug conspiracy
and in admitting in evidence his sworn statement taken, without the assistance of counsel,
by an NBI agent at the Stanley Prison i nHongkong. He contended that this is in violation
of his constitutional rights as contemplated in Section 12(1), Article III, of the
Constitution.

ISSUE AND HOLDING


Is an uncounselled confession executed in Hongkong admissible? NO
 The court ruled that Section 12(1), Article III, of the Constitution requires that 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. In the
case at bar, even if the appellant allowed himself to be investigated without a counsel,
this does not signify that he has waived his right of having one. Such right is for any
Filipino citizen to exercise even when abroad. Therefore, his sworn statement remains an
inadmissible evidence in court.
 Moreover, conspiracy to be the basis for a conviction, should be proved in the same
manner as the criminal act itself. It is also essential that a conscious design to commit an
offense must be established. Conspiracy is not the product of negligence but of
intentionality on the part of the cohorts. Under Philippine laws, the onus probandi in
establishing the guilt of an accused for a criminal offense lies with the prosecution. There
is no clear proof that appellant Immaculata was together with the other accused in
designing the commission of the crime charge
DISPOSITION
Petition is dismissed.

You might also like