001 GUTANG v.

PEOPLE (ADRIAS)
11 July 2000 | De Leon, Jr., J. | Admissiblity of Evidence; Constitutional FACTS:
Prohibitions 1.! Before us is a petition for review on certiorari assailing the decisions of
the lower courts finding petitioner David J. Gutang guilty beyond
PETITIONER: David Gutang Y Juarez reasonable doubt for violation of Sections 8 and 16 of RA 6425, as
RESPONDENTS: People of the Philippines amended, (for illegal possession and use of prohibited drugs) as charged
in Criminal Cases Nos. 2696-D and 2697-D, respectively.
SUMMARY: David Gutang, Noel Regala, Alex Jimenez and Oscar De 2.! David Gutang, Noel Regala, Alex Jimenez and Oscar De Venecia, Jr.
Venecia, Jr. were arrested in his residence by the PNP NARCOM in were arrested in his residence at No. 331 Ortigas Avenue, Greenhills,
connection of a search warrant issued by Judge Villarama. Gutang et al were San Juan, Metro Manila by the PNP NARCOM in connection of a search
found in the CR of the master’s bedroom with drug paraphernalia. The PNP warrant issued by Judge Villarama.
also found shabu in Regala’s car. Gutang et al were then brought to Camp 3.! Gutang et al were found in the CR of the master’s bedroom, at the
Crame and tested positive for shabu in their urine. Hence, an information was second floor of the house, with drug paraphernalia on top of a glass table:
filed against the Gutang et al for violations of the Dangerous Drugs Act. a.! shabu paraphernalias, such as tooters;
Charges against De Venecia were dismissed due to his voluntary submission b.! aluminum foil;
to rehab. RTC and CA found the three to be guilty beyond reasonable doubt. c.! two (2) burners (one small, one big);
Gutang assails the admissiblity in evidence of the receipts of property seized, d.! fourteen (14) disposable lighters;
the physical reports, the chemical reports and his urine sample. The issue in e.! three (3) weighing scales;
this case is WoN the property seized by the PNP-NARCOM was obtained in f.! plastic sealant used in repacking shabu;
violation of the constitutional rights of the accused and inadmissible in g.! several transparent plastic bags of different sizes;
evidence. (1) Receipts of Property Seized – INADMISSIBLE. The fact that h.! about 1.4 grams of suspected marijuana fruiting tops contained
the signature to such receipt was done without the assistance of counsel is in a small white plastic;
tantamount to an extra-judicial confession hence, prohibited by the i.! about 0.7 gram of suspected dried marijuana contained in a
constitution. (2) The Physical and Chemical Reports – ADMISSIBLE. The small plastic container.
fact that the Receipts of Property Seized are inadmissible in evidence does 4.! The PNP also inspected the cars of the accused which were parked in the
not render inadmissible the Physical and Chemistry reports. The tests residence of Gutang:
conducted on the examined materials were legally and validly done on the a.! Regala’s car – Tested positive for the presence of shabu found inside
strength of a valid search warrant. (3) Urine Sample – ADMISSIBLE. The a Winchester Rayban case and tooters in a black plastic container
case at bar falls within the exemption under the freedom from testimonial and aluminum foil
compulsion, since what was sought to be examined came from the body of b.! Jimenes and De Venecia, Jr’s cars –yielded negative results
the accused. This was a mechanical act the accused was made to undergo, c.! The confiscated items were brought to Camp Crame and the results
which was not meant to unearth undisclosed facts but to ascertain physical of the laboratory examinations showed that the said items found in
attributes determinable by simple observation. the master’s bedroom of the residence of Gutang were positive for
marijuana and methamphetamine hydrochloride (shabu).
DOCTRINE: (1) Evidence obtained without assistance of counsel is 5.! Thereafter Gutang et al underwent a drug test, which showed that they
inadmissible in evidence. It is tantamount to an extra-judicial confession were positive for the presence of shabu in their urine. Hence, an
hence, prohibited by the constitution. (2) Laboratory reports of legally seized information was filed against the Gutang et al for violations of the
materials (by virtue of a valid search warrant) is admissible in evidence. (3) Dangerous Drugs Act (Sec. 8 and 16).
Use of Body of accused in evidence or a mechanical act falls within the 6.! During arraignment, Gutang, Regala and Jiminez pleaded not guilty and
exemption under the consitituional prohibition of freedom from testimonial joint trial of the cases proceeded wherein Gutang did not present any
compulsion without counsel. evidence.
7.! The charge against co-accused de Venecia was dismissed due to his
 voluntary submission for treatment, rehabilitation and confinement in a inadmissible receipts.
rehab center. 4.! The court disagrees. The Chemistry Reports done legally are admissible
8.! TRIAL COURT: Found the trio guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the despite being conclusions formed from the inadmissible receipts.
offence charged. 5.! As to Exhibits “D,” “M” and “L” (the physical and chemistry reports)
a.! Criminal Case 1 (Sec. 8 of RA 6425) – Guilty of possession and use a.! ADMISSIBLE- The fact that the Receipts of Property Seized are
of prohibited drug inadmissible in evidence does not render inadmissible the Physical
b.! Criminal case 2 (Sec. 16 of RA 6425) – Guilty of possession and Chemistry reports.
c.! Criminal case 3 (Regala only) – Possesion of regulated drugs b.! The tests conducted on the examined materials were legally and
9.! APPELLATE COURT: Affirmed trial court’s ruling. validly done on the strength of a valid search warrant.
c.! The said Reports containing the results of the laboratory
ISSUE/s: examinations, aside from the testimonial and other real evidence of
1.! WoN the property seized by the PNP-NARCOM was obtained in the prosecution, are admissible in evidence and sufficiently proved
violation of the constitutional rights of the accused and inadmissible that the Gutang used and had the said prohibited drugs and
in evidence – NO. Although the receipts of property seized are paraphernalia in his possession.
inadmissible in evidence, the physical reports, chemical reports and d.! In other words, even without the Receipts of Property Seized
urine sample were legally and validly obtained on strength of a valid (Exhibits I and R) the alleged guilt of Gutang for the crimes charged
search warrant. were proven beyond reasonable doubt.
2.! Additional Issue - WoN Gutang’s constitutional right of presumption
of innocence was not overcome by proof beyond reasonable doubt – Sample Urines; Exception; Mechanical Act; ADMISSIBLE
NO. The conviction of the accused was sustained due to pieces of 6.! Gutang argues that the urine samples collected are inadmissible as this
credible evidence. was done without the assistance of counsel and, hence violative of his
constitutional rights using Article III, Sec. 2 of the Consitution as basis.
RULING: WHEREFORE, he petition is hereby DENIED. The decision of 7.! The court ruled disagrees. What the Constitution prohibits is the use of
the Court of Appeals affirming the judgment of the Regional Trial Court is physical or moral compulsion to extort communication from the
AFFIRMED. accused, but not an inclusion of his body in evidence, when it may be
material
RATIO: a.! The right to counsel begins from the time a person is
Right to Counsel; Signature of seized property without counsel amounts to taken into custody and placed under investigation for the commission
extrajudicial confession; INADMISSIBLE of a crime, i.e., when the investigating officer starts to ask questions
1.! At issue is the admission in evidence of the receipts of property seized to elicit information and/or confession or admissions from the
containing the signature of the Gutang by virtue of the search warrant, accused. Such right is guaranteed by the Constitution and cannot be
which was obtained without the assistance of counsel and therefore waived except in writing and in the presence of counsel.
inadmissible for being fruits of the poisonous tree. 8.! The situation in the case at bar falls within the exemption under the
2.! The court agrees. Exhibit “I” and “R” (The receipt of property seized) freedom from testimonial compulsion, since what was sought to be
a.! INADMISSIBLE- the fact that the signature to such receipt was examined came from the body of the accused.
done without the assistance of counsel is tantamount to an extra- 9.! This was a mechanical act the accused was made to undergo which was
judicial confession hence, prohibited by the constitution. not meant to unearth undisclosed facts but to ascertain physical attributes
determinable by simple observation.
Physical and Chemistry Reports; Legal and Valid; ADMISSIBLE 10.! Assuming arguendo the urine samples are inadmissible there is still
3.! Gutang further contends that since the receipts are inadmissible, the enough credible evidence to rule the guilt of Gutang.
Physical Reports (Exhibit D and M) and Chemistry Reports (Exhibit L) 11.! The conviction of the accused was sustained due to other pieces of
are likewise inadmissible since they are conclusions formed from the credible evidence such as:
 a.! Gutang could not explain satisfactorily why there were drug pesos shall be imposed upon any person who, unless authorized by law, shall
paraphernalia in his bedroom. possess or use Indian hemp.
b.! At the time of the arrest, Gutang showed signs that he was under the
influence of drugs. (Profusely sweating, lips were dry, tongue was Section 16 of RA 6425 – Possession or Use of Regulated Drugs. The
whitish and faces were pale) penalty of imprisonment ranging from six months and one day to four years
c.! A confidential informant bought shabu from Gutang. and a fine ranging from six hundred to four thousand pesos shall be imposed
upon any person who shall possess or use any regulated drug without the
Not mentioned in the case, but since this is under Bill of Rights in our corresponding license or prescription.
syllabus, sir might ask some concepts:
1.! Section 2, Article III of the Constitution mandates that a search and
seizure must be carried out through or on the strength of a judicial
warrant predicated upon the existence of probable cause; in the absence
of such warrant, such search and seizure becomes, as a general rule,
"unreasonable" within the meaning of said constitutional provision.
2.! To protect people from unreasonable searches and seizures, Section 3
(2), Article III of the Constitution provides an exclusionary rule which
instructs that evidence obtained and confiscated on the occasion of such
unreasonable searches and seizures are deemed tainted and should be
excluded for being the proverbial fruit of a poisonous tree.
3.! In other words, evidence obtained from unreasonable searches and
seizures shall be inadmissible in evidence for any purpose in any
proceeding.

Provisions metioned
Article III, Sec. 2 of the Constitution – the The right of the people to be
secure in their person, houses, papers, and effects against unreasonable
searches and seizures of whatever nature and for any purpose shall be
inviolable, and no search warrant or warrant of arrest shall issue except upon
probable cause to be determined personally by the judge after examination
under oath or affirmation of the complainant and the witnesses he may
produce, and particularly describing the place to be searched and the person
or things to be seized.

*Note: RA 6425 is the old Dangerous Drugs Act of 1972