G.R. No. L-65674 April 15, 1988
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, vs. DANILO B. CAPULONG, defendant-appellant.

FACTS

The prosecution’s evidence established that on October 14, 1982, a Constabulary Anti-Narcotics Unit (CANU) team conducted a buy-bust operation in Santa Cruz, Laguna, targeting appellant Danilo Capulong, an alleged marijuana pusher. An informant, Larry Estacio, approached Capulong and successfully purchased six plastic bags of dried marijuana leaves for fifty pesos. The transaction was witnessed by the CANU officers, who immediately arrested Capulong upon receipt of the marked money. Laboratory examination confirmed the substance was marijuana. Capulong also executed an extra-judicial confession at headquarters.
The defense presented a different version. Capulong claimed he was merely watching a basketball game when the drunk informant, Estacio, arrived, asked for marijuana, was refused, but later returned to plant the marijuana and the marked money before returning with the arresting officers. Capulong alleged his confession was coerced through maltreatment and that the investigators extorted money from him, fabricating the case when payment failed.

ISSUE

The primary issues were: (1) the admissibility of Capulong’s extra-judicial confession, and (2) the credibility of the prosecution witnesses versus the defense.

RULING

The Supreme Court affirmed the conviction. On the first issue, the Court deemed the question of the confession’s voluntariness academic. Applying the 1987 Constitution, which mandates that the right to counsel cannot be waived except in writing and in counsel’s presence, the confession—obtained without assistance of counsel—was inadmissible regardless of any claim of coercion. However, the conviction was sustained based on the other evidence.
On credibility, the Court upheld the trial court’s findings, emphasizing the rule that such factual determinations are accorded high respect. The prosecution evidence, provided by the three CANU officers who were eyewitnesses to the buy-bust operation, was found credible and sufficient to prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt. The officers were presumed to have regularly performed their duty, and their testimonies established that Capulong was caught in flagrante delicto selling marijuana. The defense’s allegations of extortion were deemed insufficient to disprove the crime; the Court reasoned that such a demand ironically implied an admission of a case to “fix.” The non-presentation of the informant, Larry Estacio, was not fatal, as his testimony would have been merely corroborative. The appealed decision finding Capulong guilty of violating the Dangerous Drugs Act and sentencing him to life imprisonment and a fine was affirmed.