GR L 65832; (January, 1985) (Digest)
G.R. No. L-65832 January 31, 1985
THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, vs. FERNANDO P. QUEBRAL and GERRY J. BIROG, accused, FERNANDO P. QUEBRAL, accused-appellant.
FACTS
Accused-appellant Fernando P. Quebral was convicted of violating the Dangerous Drugs Act ( Republic Act No. 6425 , as amended) by the Regional Trial Court of Dagupan City and sentenced to reclusion perpetua. The prosecution’s evidence established that, acting on information, police officers orchestrated an entrapment operation on July 2, 1982. An informant, Glen Barrozo, was provided with a marked one-hundred-peso bill to purchase marijuana from Quebral at the Pantranco Station in Dagupan City. Police officers Bernardo Gonzales and Reynaldo Orprecio positioned themselves nearby and witnessed Barrozo hand the money to Quebral, who in turn delivered dried marijuana leaves. Quebral was arrested, and the confiscated leaves were chemically confirmed to be marijuana. Following his arrest, Quebral executed a sworn extra-judicial confession admitting the sale.
ISSUE
The core issues are: (1) whether the trial court erred in giving credence to the prosecution’s evidence, and (2) whether Quebral’s extra-judicial confession was obtained in violation of his constitutional rights during custodial investigation, rendering it inadmissible.
RULING
The Supreme Court affirmed the conviction. On the first issue, the Court found the testimonies of the police officers credible and sufficient to establish guilt beyond reasonable doubt. Patrolman Gonzales positively identified Quebral as the seller and clearly testified to witnessing the exchange of money for marijuana from a distance of about ten meters, a account substantially corroborated by Patrolman Orprecio. The defense’s claim of witness bias was unsubstantiated. The Court also ruled that the prosecution is not obligated to present every possible witness, such as the grocery store owner or the informant; the defense could have summoned them if their testimony was vital.
On the second issue, the Court held that Quebral’s constitutional rights under Article IV, Section 20 of the 1973 Constitution were not violated. The confession (Exhibit “A”) contained a clear preamble where Quebral was informed of his right to remain silent and to counsel, and he expressly waived these rights, affirming his willingness to give a voluntary statement. The Court found this waiver sufficient in form and substance, meeting constitutional standards. The confession, which included a direct admission that the exhibited leaves were the same ones he sold, was therefore admissible. The appealed decision was affirmed in its entirety.