G.R. No. L-59378 February 11, 1986
People of the Philippines, plaintiff-appellee, vs. Nelia Nicandro y Velarma, accused-appellant.

FACTS

The accused, Nelia Nicandro, was charged with the illegal sale of marijuana following an entrapment operation on November 6, 1981, at a pension house in Manila. Acting on complaints, police officers conducted surveillance and then orchestrated a buy-bust. A confidential informant, provided with marked money, purchased four sticks of marijuana cigarettes from Nicandro in her room. Upon the informant’s signal, the arresting team apprehended Nicandro. A search yielded the marked bills from her pocket and additional marijuana flowering tops. During custodial investigation, she allegedly made a verbal admission of the sale and ownership of the drugs but refused to reduce her confession to writing.
At trial, the prosecution’s case hinged on the testimony of Pfc. Romeo Joves, who narrated the entrapment and claimed to have witnessed the sale. He also testified to Nicandro’s post-arrest oral admission. The defense presented a starkly different account, asserting that Nicandro was merely a visitor in the room, which was occupied by a certain “Bobby,” and that she was framed after refusing sexual advances from a police officer. The trial court convicted Nicandro, giving credence to the prosecution’s version.

ISSUE

Whether the guilt of the accused was proven beyond reasonable doubt, considering the admissibility and weight of her alleged extrajudicial confession and the conflicting testimonies.

RULING

The Supreme Court reversed the conviction and acquitted Nicandro based on reasonable doubt. The Court found the prosecution’s evidence insufficient. Crucially, the alleged verbal confession made during custodial investigation was ruled inadmissible. The prosecution failed to affirmatively demonstrate that the constitutional safeguards under the 1973 Constitution were properly observed. Specifically, there was no sufficient showing that Nicandro was effectively informed of her rights to remain silent and to counsel in a manner she could intelligently understand, or that she validly waived these rights. Following precedents like People vs. Ramos and People vs. Caguioa, a confession obtained without such a clear, affirmative showing of compliance is inadmissible. With the confession excluded, the remaining evidence was deemed inadequate to sustain a conviction. The testimony of Pfc. Joves, who claimed to have witnessed the sale, was viewed with caution given the inherent uncertainties of a buy-bust operation and the contrasting defense narrative. The prosecution did not present the confidential informant to corroborate the officer’s account. Consequently, the evidence did not overcome the constitutional presumption of innocence and failed to establish guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.