Gutang vs. People

The right against self-incrimination prohibits the use of physical or moral compulsion to extort communication or testimonial evidence from the accused, but it does not prohibit the inclusion of the accused's body in evidence when material, such as through urine sampling. Consequently, laboratory reports on substances validly seized under a search warrant and urine test results are admissible independent evidence, notwithstanding the inadmissibility of uncounselled signatures on property receipts.

PNP-NARCOM operatives conducted a surveillance and subsequent raid on the residence of petitioner David Gutang pursuant to a search warrant issued by Judge Martin Villarama, Jr. Inside the master bedroom, the police found Gutang and his companions, along with drug paraphernalia and suspected marijuana and methamphetamine hydrochloride (shabu). The seized items were subjected to laboratory examination and tested positive for prohibited and regulated drugs. The arrested individuals were taken to Camp Crame, where they voluntarily provided urine samples that also tested positive for shabu.

• The Search and Arrest: On March 5, 1994, PNP-NARCOM operatives served a search warrant at the residence of petitioner David Gutang. The police found petitioner and his three companions inside the comfort room of the master bedroom.
• Seizure of Items: Atop a glass table in the master bedroom, police found shabu paraphernalia (tooters, aluminum foil, burners, lighters, weighing scales, plastic sealant, and bags) and suspected marijuana. An inspection of the companions' parked cars yielded shabu residues inside the car of Noel Regala.
• Laboratory Examination of Seized Items: The confiscated items were brought to the PNP Crime Laboratory. Physical Sciences Report No. D-168-94 confirmed the items from the master bedroom tested positive for marijuana and methamphetamine hydrochloride, while the items from Regala's car tested positive for methamphetamine hydrochloride.
• Drug Dependency Test: On the same day, the arrested individuals were brought to Camp Crame. Upon request by PNP-NARCOM, petitioner and his companions submitted urine samples. Chemistry Report No. DT-107-94 and Physical Report No. DT-107-94 showed the urine samples tested positive for methamphetamine hydrochloride.
• Trial Court Proceedings: Petitioner pleaded not guilty but did not present any evidence. The RTC convicted him for illegal possession and use of prohibited drugs, which the Court of Appeals subsequently affirmed.

• Petitioner argued that the Receipts for Property Seized (Exhibits I and R) were inadmissible because he signed them without the assistance of counsel, rendering them tantamount to uncounselled extrajudicial confessions.
• Petitioner contended that the Physical Science Reports and Chemistry Reports (Exhibits D, L, and M) were inadmissible as "fruits of the poisonous tree," being derived from the inadmissible receipts.
• Petitioner claimed that the taking of his urine sample without counsel violated his right against unreasonable search and seizure and his right against self-incrimination, rendering the resulting chemistry and physical reports inadmissible.
• Petitioner asserted that his presumption of innocence was not overcome by proof beyond reasonable doubt.

• Procedural Issues: N/A
• Substantive Issues:
  • Whether the Receipts for Property Seized signed by the petitioner without counsel are admissible in evidence.
  • Whether the Physical Science Reports and Chemistry Reports on the seized items are rendered inadmissible by the inadmissibility of the Receipts for Property Seized.
  • Whether the taking of the petitioner's urine sample and the subsequent laboratory reports thereon violate his right against self-incrimination and right to counsel.

• Procedural: N/A
• Substantive:
  • The Court agreed with the petitioner that the Receipts for Property Seized were inadmissible. The signature of an accused on a Receipt of Property Seized is a declaration against interest and a tacit admission of the crime charged where mere unexplained possession is punishable by law. Obtained without the assistance of counsel, such signatures are inadmissible as uncounselled extrajudicial confessions.
  • The Court disagreed that the Physical Science and Chemistry Reports on the seized items were inadmissible. The inadmissibility of the receipts does not extend to the laboratory reports because the examined materials were legally seized from the petitioner's bedroom pursuant to a valid search warrant. Because the materials were lawfully seized, the laboratory tests conducted thereon were valid, and the resulting reports are admissible independent evidence.
  • The Court ruled that the taking of the urine sample and the resulting reports did not violate the petitioner's constitutional rights. The right to counsel attaches during custodial investigation to elicit information or confessions. The right against self-incrimination prohibits physical or moral compulsion to extort communication, but not the inclusion of the accused's body in evidence. Extracting a urine sample is a mechanical act to ascertain physical attributes determinable by simple observation, not testimonial compulsion. Moreover, the record showed petitioner voluntarily gave the urine sample when requested.

• Right Against Self-Incrimination — The constitutional proscription prohibits the use of physical or moral compulsion to extort communication or admissions from the accused, but it does not prohibit the inclusion of his body in evidence when material. An accused may be compelled to undergo mechanical or physical tests, such as urine extraction, photographing, or measuring, because these ascertain physical attributes rather than extract undisclosed facts.
• Declaration Against Interest in Property Seized — The signature of an accused on a Receipt of Property Seized constitutes a declaration against interest and a tacit admission of the crime charged where mere unexplained possession is punishable by law. Such signature, if obtained without the assistance of counsel, is inadmissible as an uncounselled extrajudicial confession.

• "What the Constitution prohibits is the use of physical or moral compulsion to extort communication from the accused, but not an inclusion of his body in evidence, when it may be material."
• "This was a mechanical act the accused was made to undergo which was not meant to unearth undisclosed facts but to ascertain physical attributes determinable by simple observation."

• People vs. Lacbanes, 270 SCRA 193 (1997) — Followed. Held that the signature of the accused in the Receipt of Property Seized is inadmissible if obtained without the assistance of counsel.
• People vs. Tranca, 235 SCRA 455 (1994) — Followed. Established that the right to counsel begins from the time a person is taken into custody and placed under investigation, and that the Constitution prohibits compulsion to extort communication but not the inclusion of the body in evidence.
• People vs. Paynor, 261 SCRA 615 (1996) — Followed. Held that an accused may validly be compelled to be photographed or measured, or to move his body, without violating the proscription against testimonial compulsion.

• Article III, Section 2, 1987 Constitution — Guarantees the right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects against unreasonable searches and seizures. The Court held that the taking of the urine sample did not violate this provision, as it was a mechanical act and the petitioner voluntarily complied.
• Sections 8 and 16, Republic Act No. 6425 (as amended by Republic Act No. 7659) — Penalize the possession and use of prohibited drugs and possession of regulated drugs, respectively. Petitioner was charged and convicted under these provisions.

Bellosillo (Chairman), Mendoza, Quisumbing, and Buena, JJ.