GR L 59318; (May, 1983) (Digest)
G.R. No. L-59318 May 16, 1983
People of the Philippines, plaintiff-appellee, vs. Rogelio Ramos y Gaerlan, defendant-appellant.
FACTS
On May 3, 1981, police officers arrested Malcon Olevere after finding dried marijuana leaves in his possession. Olevere implicated Rogelio Ramos as the source of the marijuana. The following day, police arrested Ramos at his residence. During custodial investigation, Olevere executed a sworn statement naming Ramos as the seller, and Ramos verbally admitted to selling the marijuana leaves for P10.00. At trial, the prosecution presented police officers and a forensic chemist but failed to present Olevere himself as a witness.
The Court of First Instance of Manila convicted Ramos of violating the Dangerous Drugs Act, imposing reclusion perpetua. The court relied on Ramos’s alleged verbal admission and the sworn statement of the absent Olevere. The case was elevated to the Supreme Court for automatic review, with Ramos arguing that his constitutional rights were violated and that the evidence was insufficient for conviction.
ISSUE
Whether the prosecution presented competent and admissible evidence to prove Ramos’s guilt beyond reasonable doubt.
RULING
The Supreme Court reversed the conviction and acquitted Ramos. The ruling was based on the inadmissibility of the two key pieces of evidence used by the trial court. First, the sworn statement of Malcon Olevere was deemed a “mere scrap of paper” because Olevere was not presented in court for cross-examination. This violated Ramos’s constitutional right to confront the witnesses against him face to face, rendering the affidavit hearsay and without probative value.
Second, Ramos’s alleged verbal admission during custodial investigation was also held inadmissible. The records failed to show that Ramos was fully informed of his right to remain silent and to counsel, or that he was assisted by counsel during questioning. Following Section 20, Article IV of the 1973 Constitution, any confession obtained without these safeguards is inadmissible in evidence. With the exclusion of Olevere’s affidavit and Ramos’s uncounseled admission, the remaining evidence was insufficient to establish guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. The prosecution’s failure to present Olevere, the alleged buyer, left no direct evidence of the sale. The presumption of innocence therefore prevailed, mandating acquittal.