GR 109242; (January, 1999) (Digest)
G.R. No. 109242 January 26, 1999
LITO MARCELO, petitioner, vs. THE HON. SANDIGANBAYAN (First Division) and the PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, respondents.
FACTS
Petitioner Lito Marcelo, a private individual, was convicted by the Sandiganbayan of Qualified Theft in conspiracy with Arnold Pasicolan, a public officer assigned as a bag opener at the Makati Central Post Office. The information alleged that on February 17, 1989, they conspired to steal a mail bag containing assorted mail matter, including U.S. dollar bills. The theft was uncovered through a prior disclosure by a letter carrier, leading to an NBI surveillance operation.
The NBI agents witnessed Pasicolan alight from a postal jeep with a mail bag, pass through an alley, and hand the bag to Marcelo and his co-accused Ronnie Romero on Amorsolo Street. The two then transferred the mail contents to a traveling bag secured to their motorcycle. They were promptly arrested. The seized bag contained 622 letters, some with currency. At the NBI headquarters, the accused were made to sign the seized envelopes for authentication purposes.
ISSUE
Whether the Sandiganbayan erred in convicting the petitioner, considering the admissibility of the evidence against him, particularly the envelopes he was compelled to sign during custodial investigation without counsel.
RULING
The Supreme Court affirmed the conviction. The legal logic centers on the distinction between inadmissible confessions/admissions and independently obtained physical evidence. The Court ruled that while the signatures affixed by the accused on the envelopes during custodial investigation without the assistance of counsel are inadmissible under Article III, Sections 12(1) and 17 of the Constitution, this exclusionary rule does not extend to the letters themselves.
The letters were validly seized as an incident to a lawful arrest. Their existence and possession by the accused were sufficiently established by the testimonies of the apprehending NBI agents and other prosecution witnesses, independent of the inadmissible signatures. The conviction was not based solely on the authenticated envelopes but on the totality of evidence, including the eyewitness account of the conspiracy and the actual possession of stolen mail. Therefore, the physical evidence (the letters) remained admissible as the “fruits of the crime” obtained from a valid warrantless arrest, leading to the affirmance of the Sandiganbayan’s decision finding petitioner guilty of Qualified Theft.