People of the Philippines vs. Wong Chuen Ming, et al.

Signatures affixed by suspects on seized drug containers and on the plastic bags containing the prohibited substance during custodial investigation, without prior notification of their right to remain silent and to counsel, constitute uncounselled extra-judicial admissions that are inadmissible in evidence; the constitutional guarantees embodied in the Bill of Rights extend to all persons, both aliens and citizens.

Wong Chuen Ming and Au Wing Cheung, both British (Hongkong) nationals, arrived in Manila on 7 September 1991 together with nine Malaysian nationals as a tour group arranged by Select Tours International Co., Ltd., with Au Wing Cheung — an employee of the agency — acting as their tour guide. The group was charged under Section 15, Article III of Republic Act No. 6425, as amended, otherwise known as the Dangerous Drugs Act of 1972, for unlawfully transporting methamphetamine hydrochloride or "shabu" into the country. The prosecution's case rested on the examination of the tour group's baggages at the NAIA and on the signatures the accused were made to affix on the boxes and plastic bags during the investigation that followed.

On 7 September 1991, at about 1:00 o'clock in the afternoon, Philippine Air Lines Flight PR No. 301 from Hongkong arrived at the Ninoy Aquino International Airport in Pasay City. Among its passengers were eleven accused: Wong Chuen Ming and Au Wing Cheung, both British (Hongkong) nationals, and Tan Soi Tee, Chin Kok Wee, Lim Chan Fatt, Chin Kin Yong, Yap Boon Ah, Chin Kong Song, Chin Kin Fah, Chai Min Huwa, and Lim Nyuk Sun, all Malaysian nationals. Their passports showed that all the Malaysian accused except Lim Chan Fatt originally came from Malaysia, travelled to Singapore and Hongkong before proceeding to Manila, while Wong Chuen Ming, Au Wing Cheung, and Lim Chan Fatt came directly from Hongkong. The entire group arrived as a tour group arranged by Select Tours International Co., Ltd., with Au Wing Cheung, an employee of the agency, acting as their tour guide.

After passing through immigration and retrieving their checked-in baggages, the group placed the baggages on one pushcart and proceeded to Express Lane 5, then manned by customs examiner Danilo Gomez. Au Wing Cheung handed Gomez the group's passenger manifest, baggage declarations, and passports. Gomez instructed the group to place their baggages on the examiner's table and to hold on to their respective baggages while awaiting examination. He first examined the baggage of Chin Kong Song and found three brown boxes similar in size to powdered milk boxes, marked "Alpen Cereals," underneath the clothes; finding nothing wrong, he returned them and allowed Chin Kong Song to go. Following the same procedure, he next examined the baggage of Wong Chuen Ming and pulled out two similar boxes, again finding nothing wrong and allowing him to go. When he examined the baggage of Lim Nyuk Sun and pulled out another three boxes, he became suspicious and opened one with his cutter, revealing a plastic bag containing white crystalline substance. Alarmed, Gomez immediately called the attention of Appraiser Oreganan Palala and Duty Collector Zenaida Reyes Bonifacio.

Bonifacio ordered the tour group to get their baggages and proceed to the district collector's office, including Chin Kong Song and Wong Chuen Ming who had earlier been cleared. Inside the collector's office, Gomez continued examining the baggages and allegedly found that each contained one, two, or three boxes similar to those previously found, for a total of thirty boxes recovered from the eleven accused. As Gomez pulled the boxes out, he bundled them with masking tape and handed them to Bonifacio, who called out the names of the accused as listed in the passengers' manifest and ordered them to sign on the masking tape placed on the boxes allegedly recovered from their respective baggages. Capt. Rustico Francisco and his men, agents of the Bureau of Customs, and several news reporters were present; a few minutes later, District Collector Antonio Marquez arrived with General Job Mayo and then NBI Deputy Director Mariano Mison. Capt. Francisco conducted a field test on a sample of the white crystalline substance, which showed it was "shabu," and immediately informed the eleven accused that they were under arrest. All the accused, together with the boxes placed inside a big box, were then brought to Camp Crame, where they were asked to identify their signatures on the boxes and, after having identified them, were again made to sign on the plastic bags containing the white crystalline substance inside the boxes bearing their signatures. Forensic chemist Elizabeth Ayonon confirmed that the substance recovered was "shabu," with a total weight of 34.45 kilograms.

The defense was anchored on the testimony of co-accused Lim Chan Fatt, a technician and self-confessed "call boy," who admitted being responsible for bringing the boxes of Alpen Cereals into the country but denied any knowledge that they contained "shabu." He testified that, except for Chin Kong Song and Lim Nyuk Sun, all the other accused were unknown or complete strangers to him until the trip; that he had met Chin Kong Song and Lim Nyuk Sun at his boarding house in Hongkong where the two temporarily lived a few days before the trip; that a certain Ah Hong, a co-boarder and Hongkong businessman, asked him to bring boxes of cereals to the Philippines, promising that a certain Ah Sing would get the boxes from him at the airport and that he would have a good time in the Philippines; that Ah Hong even opened one box to show that it really contained cereals; and that, because his baggage could not accommodate all thirty boxes, he entrusted five boxes to Chin Kong Song and another five to Lim Nyuk Sun, placed four inside a hand-carried plastic bag, and put the rest inside his baggage. Accused-appellants denied that boxes of Alpen Cereals were recovered from their baggages and claimed that they affixed their signatures on the boxes only because they were threatened by police authorities present during the examination inside the collector's office. Au Wing Cheung maintained that he was a bona fide employee of Select Tours International Co., Ltd. and had no prior knowledge that the tour group he was supposed to accompany brought boxes containing "shabu." Wong Chuen Ming, for his part, testified that he was not part of the group, having been originally booked with Wing Ann Travel Co. for a five-day Cebu tour that was cancelled due to insufficient clients, after which he was transferred to and accommodated by Select Tours. The other accused who did not take the witness stand opted to adopt as their own all the testimonial and documentary evidence presented for the defense.

The trial court gave credence to Gomez's testimony inculpating all the accused, relying on the presumption that he had performed his duties in a regular manner. That testimony, however, was not corroborated by the other prosecution witnesses: Bonifacio stated during cross-examination that she could not recall whether each and every one of the accused was found in possession of any box or boxes of Alpen Cereals, and Capt. Francisco admitted that he was not sure whether Gomez actually recovered boxes of "shabu" from the baggages of Au Wing Cheung and Wong Chuen Ming, although he was certain about the nine other Malaysian accused. Both accused-appellants also adamantly refused to sign the transparent plastic bags containing "shabu," telling Capt. Francisco that their baggages did not contain any prohibited drugs.

• Ineffective Counsel and Due Process: Accused-appellants argued that the joint representation by their previous counsel of both themselves and the group of nine Malaysian accused not only prejudiced them but also amounted to a deprivation of their constitutional right to effective counsel and to due process.
• Violation of Miranda Rights: Accused-appellants maintained that the apprehending customs officers violated their Miranda rights during the investigation.
• Inadmissibility of Evidence: Accused-appellants contended that the trial court erred in not excluding the inadmissible evidence obtained in violation of their Miranda rights.
• Presumption of Regularity: Accused-appellants argued that the trial court erred in relying on the presumption of regularity in the discharge of official duties despite the paucity and lack of credibility of the prosecution's evidence.
• Absence of Animus Possidendi: Accused-appellants argued that the trial court erred in disregarding the clear absence of animus possidendi on their part.

• Ineffective Counsel and Due Process: Whether the joint representation by previous counsel of accused-appellants together with the nine Malaysian accused deprived the former of their constitutional right to effective counsel and due process.
• Violation of Miranda Rights: Whether the apprehending customs officers violated accused-appellants' Miranda rights.
• Inadmissibility of Evidence: Whether the trial court erred in not excluding the evidence obtained in violation of accused-appellants' Miranda rights.
• Presumption of Regularity: Whether the trial court erred in relying on the presumption of regularity in the discharge of official duties despite the alleged paucity and lack of credibility of the prosecution's evidence.
• Animus Possidendi and Sufficiency of Evidence: Whether the trial court erred in disregarding the absence of animus possidendi on the part of accused-appellants and in finding their guilt proven beyond reasonable doubt.

• Ineffective Counsel and Due Process: No. The joint representation did not diminish the effectiveness of counsel, who presented all defenses available to each accused and did not place accused-appellants' constitutional right to counsel in jeopardy.
• Violation of Miranda Rights: Yes. Accused-appellants were never informed of their right to remain silent and to counsel, or that any statement they might make could be used against them, when they were made to affix their signatures on the boxes at the NAIA and again on the plastic bags at Camp Crame.
• Inadmissibility of Evidence: Yes. The signatures were uncounselled extra-judicial admissions violative of Section 12(1)(3), Article III of the 1987 Constitution, and are inadmissible in evidence; the exclusionary rule applies to aliens as well as citizens.
• Presumption of Regularity: Yes. The presumption of regularity in the performance of official duties cannot, by itself, prevail over the constitutional presumption of innocence, especially in light of the testimonies of the other prosecution witnesses.
• Animus Possidendi and Sufficiency of Evidence: Yes. Accused-appellants' participation in the illegal transportation of "shabu" was not proven beyond reasonable doubt.

• Ineffective Counsel and Due Process: After going over the lengthy transcripts taken during the trial, the Court was satisfied that the previous counsels tried to present all the defenses available to each of the accused and did not, in any way, put in jeopardy accused-appellants' constitutional right to counsel. Nothing in the records showed that the effectiveness of those counsels was diminished by the fact that they also jointly represented the other accused; the contention that the joint representation prejudiced accused-appellants was therefore not well-taken.

• Violation of Miranda Rights: A careful study of the records revealed that the accused were never informed of their fundamental rights during the entire time they were under investigation. Specifically, they were not informed of their Miranda rights — that they had the right to remain silent and to counsel, and that any statement they might make could be used against them — when they were made to affix their signatures on the boxes of Alpen Cereals at the NAIA and again on the plastic bags when they were already in custody at Camp Crame. Prosecution witness Danilo Gomez admitted on cross-examination that he simply requested the passengers to sign their names, without any preliminaries, without any lawyer representing them, and without informing them of their constitutional rights. Capt. Rustico Francisco likewise admitted that he did not inform the accused of their rights when he placed them under arrest. Nor did the testimony of Elizabeth Ayonon show that the accused were informed of their rights when they were again made to affix their signatures on the plastic bags; she merely had the interpreter tell them to affix their signatures for proper identification since their signatures appeared on the carton boxes.

• Inadmissibility of Evidence: By affixing their signatures on the boxes of Alpen Cereals and on the plastic bags, the accused in effect made a tacit admission of the crime charged, since mere possession of "shabu" is punished by law. Those signatures were tantamount to an uncounselled extra-judicial confession not sanctioned by the Bill of Rights under Section 12(1)(3), Article III of the 1987 Constitution, and were therefore inadmissible, because any admission wrung from an accused in violation of his constitutional rights is inadmissible against him. The fact that all the accused are foreign nationals does not preclude application of the exclusionary rule, because the constitutional guarantees embodied in the Bill of Rights are given and extend to all persons, both aliens and citizens.

• Presumption of Regularity: Without the signatures on the boxes and plastic bags, the prosecution was left with the testimonies of its witnesses to establish that all eleven accused transported "shabu" into the country. Among the prosecution witnesses, only customs examiner Danilo Gomez testified that all the seized baggages, including those owned by accused-appellants, contained a box or boxes of "shabu"; his testimony was given credence by the trial court on the presumption of regularity, but it was not corroborated by the other prosecution witnesses. Customs collector Zenaida Bonifacio stated during cross-examination that she could not recall if each and every one of the accused was found in possession of any box or boxes of Alpen Cereals. More significantly, NARCOM officer Capt. Rustico Francisco, who was present at the arrival area and claimed to have witnessed the actual examination of the baggages, admitted under clarificatory questioning that he was not sure whether Gomez actually recovered a box from the bag of Au Wing Cheung or from the bag of Wong Chuen Ming, although he was very sure about the nine other Malaysian accused. The presumption of regularity in the performance of duties accorded to Gomez cannot, by itself, prevail over the constitutional right of accused-appellants to be presumed innocent, especially in light of those testimonies of other prosecution witnesses.

• Animus Possidendi and Sufficiency of Evidence: Other circumstances militated against the conviction of accused-appellants. First, they are British (Hongkong) nationals while all the other accused are Malaysians; it is difficult to imagine how they could have conspired with the other accused, who were total strangers, when they did not even speak the same language. Second, overwhelming evidence consisting of the testimonies of Au Wing Cheung's superiors showed that he was a bona fide employee of Select Tours International Co., Ltd. Third, the evidence showed that Wong Chuen Ming was not originally part of the tour group arranged by Select Tours but was accommodated only at the last minute when his package tour to Cebu was cancelled by Wing Ann Travel Co. Finally, as testified to by Capt. Francisco, both accused-appellants adamantly refused to sign the transparent plastic bags containing "shabu," telling him that their baggages did not contain any prohibited drugs. All these circumstances, taken together with the findings of the Court, compelled the conclusion that accused-appellants' participation in the illegal transportation of "shabu" into the country had not been proven beyond reasonable doubt.

• Uncounselled Extra-Judicial Admission (Miranda Rights) — Any admission or confession obtained from a person under custodial investigation without prior notification of his right to remain silent and to counsel, and without informing him that any statement he makes may be used against him, is inadmissible in evidence. The Court applied this doctrine to signatures affixed by the accused on the Alpen Cereals boxes at the NAIA and on the plastic bags at Camp Crame, holding that these signatures amounted to a tacit admission of the crime charged and were therefore inadmissible as uncounselled extra-judicial confessions.

• Exclusionary Rule Extends to Aliens — The constitutional guarantees embodied in the Bill of Rights are given and extend to all persons, both aliens and citizens. The fact that all the accused were foreign nationals did not preclude application of the exclusionary rule to evidence obtained in violation of their constitutional rights.

• Presumption of Regularity Subordinate to Presumption of Innocence — The presumption of regularity in the performance of official duties cannot, by itself, prevail over the constitutional right of the accused to be presumed innocent, especially where the testimonies of other prosecution witnesses cast doubt on the official's account. The Court applied this by holding that Gomez's uncorroborated testimony could not sustain the conviction once the inadmissible signatures were excluded.

• Proof Beyond Reasonable Doubt — Conviction requires proof of guilt beyond reasonable doubt; the Court cannot permit the incarceration of individuals based on an insufficient factual nexus of their participation in the commission of an offense, notwithstanding the abhorrence of the proliferation of drug pushers or drug smugglers.

• "By affixing their signatures on the boxes of Alpen Cereals and on the plastic bags, accused in effect made a tacit admission of the crime charged for mere possession of 'shabu' is punished by law. These signatures of accused are tantamount to an uncounselled extra-judicial confession which is not sanctioned by the Bill of Rights (Section 12 [1][3], Article III, 1987 Constitution)." — This passage states the ratio decidendi on the inadmissibility of the signatures, characterizing them as uncounselled extra-judicial confessions and anchoring the ruling on the constitutional text.

• "The fact that all accused are foreign nationals does not preclude application of the 'exclusionary rule' because the constitutional guarantees embodied in the Bill of Rights are given and extend to all persons, both aliens and citizens." — This passage defines the scope of the exclusionary rule and settles that Bill of Rights protections are not limited to citizens.

• "Hence, the presumption of regularity in the performance of duties accorded to Gomez cannot, by itself, prevail over the constitutional right of accused-appellants to be presumed innocent especially in the light of the foregoing testimonies of other prosecution witnesses." — This passage resolves the conflict between the presumption of regularity and the presumption of innocence, and is the core of the sufficiency-of-evidence analysis.

• "[m]uch as We share the abhorrence of he disenchanted public in regard to the proliferation of drug pushers (or drug smugglers, as in this case), the Court cannot permit the incarceration of individuals based on insufficient factual nexus of their participation in the commission of an offense." — This passage, paraphrasing an admonition from a recent case, articulates the standard that judicial abhorrence of drug offenses cannot substitute for the quantum of proof required for conviction.

• People vs. Bandin, 226 SCRA 299 (1993) — Cited in support of the rule that an admission wrung from an accused in violation of his constitutional rights is inadmissible against him.
• People vs. Bagano, 181 SCRA 747 (1990) — Cited alongside Bandin for the same proposition on the inadmissibility of admissions obtained in violation of constitutional rights.
• Villegas vs. Hui Chiong Tasia Pao Ito, 86 SCRA 270 (1978) — Cited for the proposition that the constitutional guarantees embodied in the Bill of Rights extend to all persons, both aliens and citizens, so that the exclusionary rule applies notwithstanding the accused's foreign nationality.
• People vs. Melosantos, 245 SCRA 560 (1995) — Cited as the source of the admonition paraphrased by the Court that it cannot permit the incarceration of individuals based on insufficient factual nexus of their participation in the offense; also cited for the standard governing sufficiency of evidence.
• People vs. Salcedo, 145 SCRA 345 (1993) — Cited together with Melosantos in support of the reasonable doubt standard applied to the sufficiency of the prosecution's evidence.

• Section 12(1)(3), Article III, 1987 Constitution — Provides that any person under investigation for the commission of an offense shall have the right to be informed of his right to remain silent and to have competent and independent counsel, and that any confession or admission obtained in violation thereof shall be inadmissible in evidence. The Court applied this provision to hold the signatures of the accused on the boxes and plastic bags inadmissible as uncounselled extra-judicial confessions.
• Section 15, Article III, Republic Act No. 6425, as amended (Dangerous Drugs Act of 1972) — The provision under which all accused were charged and convicted for unlawfully transporting methamphetamine hydrochloride or "shabu" into the country. The Court's reversal of the conviction rested on the failure of the prosecution to prove the elements of the offense beyond reasonable doubt after the exclusion of the inadmissible signatures.

Bellosillo, Vitug, Kapunan and Hermosisima, Jr., JJ.