G.R. No. 176229 ; October 19, 2011
HO WAI PANG, Petitioner, vs. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Respondent.

FACTS

On September 6, 1991, a group of 13 Hongkong nationals arrived at the NAIA. At the customs express lane, Examiner Gilda L. Cinco, upon inspecting their baggages, discovered chocolate boxes containing white crystalline substance instead of chocolates. She called her superiors and the NARCOM. At the Intensive Counting Unit (ICU), further inspection of the baggages of the accused—Law Ka Wang, Ho Wai Pang (petitioner), Wu Hing Sum, Ho Kin San, Chan Chit Yue, and Tin San Mao—yielded a total of 18 chocolate boxes containing the substance. NARCOM Agent Neowillie de Castro conducted a field test which yielded positive for methamphetamine hydrochloride (shabu). The following day, the tourists were brought to the NBI for questioning. Forensic examination confirmed the substance was 31.1126 kilograms of shabu. Only petitioner and his five co-accused were charged. After a reinvestigation found conspiracy, a single Amended Information was filed for violation of Section 15, Article III of R.A. No. 6425 (Dangerous Drugs Act). The accused pleaded not guilty, claiming lack of knowledge as their bags were provided by the travel agency. The RTC found all accused guilty of conspiracy and sentenced them to reclusion perpetua and a fine. All accused initially appealed, but only petitioner pursued his appeal after the others withdrew. The CA affirmed the RTC decision, acknowledging a violation of petitioner’s right to counsel during custodial investigation but held other evidence sufficient for conviction. Petitioner assails the CA decision.

ISSUE

1. Whether the Court of Appeals erred in not excluding evidence taken during the custodial investigation despite acknowledging a violation of petitioner’s constitutional rights.
2. Whether the Court of Appeals erred in not finding that petitioner was deprived of his constitutional right to confront witnesses against him.
3. Whether the Court of Appeals erred in not finding that the prosecution’s evidence failed to establish conspiracy.
4. Whether the Court of Appeals erred in not finding that the prosecution failed to prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt.

RULING

The petition lacks merit.
1. On the admissibility of evidence from custodial investigation: The Court ruled that an infraction of Miranda rights during custodial investigation renders inadmissible only the extrajudicial confession or admission obtained during such investigation. The admissibility of other relevant evidence, not otherwise excluded by law, is not affected even if obtained during custodial investigation. The evidence against petitioner—the shabu discovered during the routine customs inspection at the airport—was obtained prior to any custodial investigation. The customs examination was a routine border search, not part of a custodial investigation where Miranda rights attach. Therefore, the physical evidence (the shabu) and the testimonies regarding its discovery were admissible.
2. On the right to confront witnesses: The Court found no deprivation of petitioner’s right to confront witnesses. The records show that petitioner was present during the trial and his counsel cross-examined the prosecution witnesses. The right was duly exercised.
3. On the existence of conspiracy: The Court affirmed the findings of both the RTC and CA that conspiracy existed. Conspiracy can be inferred from the acts of the accused before, during, and after the commission of the crime, indicating a common purpose. The circumstances—traveling together as a group, using identical chocolate boxes to conceal the shabu in their respective baggages, and their coordinated actions—sufficiently established a common design to transport illegal drugs.
4. On proof beyond reasonable doubt: The Court held that the prosecution successfully proved petitioner’s guilt. The shabu was discovered during a valid customs inspection. The chain of custody of the evidence was established through the testimonies of Cinco, de Castro, and the forensic chemist. Petitioner’s denial and claim of lack of knowledge, being unsupported by clear and convincing evidence, cannot prevail over the positive identification and physical evidence presented by the prosecution.
The Court of Appeals decision was affirmed. Petitioner Ho Wai Pang was found guilty beyond reasonable doubt of violating Section 15, Article III of R.A. No. 6425 , as amended.