G.R. No. L-46373. January 22, 1988.
YAP PENG CHONG, petitioner, vs. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES and COURT OF APPEALS, respondents.

FACTS

Petitioner Yap Peng Chong, along with others, was charged with violating Republic Act No. 3720 (Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act) for conspiring to manufacture, sell, distribute, and deliver fake, adulterated, and mislabeled drugs without proper authority. After trial, the Court of First Instance of Rizal convicted Yap Peng Chong and a co-accused, sentencing them to imprisonment and a fine. The Court of Appeals affirmed the conviction, prompting this petition for review.
In his appeal, Yap Peng Chong raised two primary contentions. First, he argued that his extrajudicial confession was involuntary, having been prepared by NBI agents without his participation and signed under duress, maltreatment, and threats of deportation. Second, he maintained that the evidence presented was insufficient to overcome the presumption of innocence and warrant his conviction.

ISSUE

The core issues are: (1) whether the extrajudicial confession was voluntarily executed and admissible, and (2) whether the totality of evidence is sufficient to prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt.

RULING

The Supreme Court denied the petition and affirmed the conviction. On the first issue, the Court upheld the appellate court’s finding that the extrajudicial confession was voluntary and admissible. The petitioner’s claim of coercion was not given credence, as he failed to present any corroborative evidence. The Court noted the confession was dated the same day as his arrest, and no complaint of maltreatment was made to the swearing officer during its execution, nor was any evidence of physical abuse presented during the trial to cast doubt on the confession’s integrity.
On the second issue, the Court ruled that even disregarding the contested confession, the prosecution’s evidence amply established guilt beyond reasonable doubt. This evidence included the execution of a valid search warrant, the seizure of various drugs and manufacturing paraphernalia from the petitioner’s residence, an inventory he acknowledged, photographs of the raid, and prior surveillance where an agent purchased fake drugs from him. Crucially, laboratory analysis confirmed the seized drugs were fake, as their ingredients did not conform to the specifications mandated by law. The Supreme Court found no reason to disturb the factual conclusions of the Court of Appeals, emphasizing that the findings of the lower courts on factual matters are generally binding unless compelling reasons exist to overturn them.