DAVID GUTANG Y JUAREZ, PETITIONER, VS. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, RESPONDENT.

Gutang versus People

The Case

This is the case of Gutang versus People, a petition for review on certiorari brought by David Gutang against the People of the Philippines. Gutang was convicted by the Regional Trial Court of Pasig, Metro Manila, and that conviction was affirmed by the Court of Appeals, for illegal possession and use of prohibited drugs under the Dangerous Drugs Act. The case matters for two reasons. First, it fixes the rule on the Receipt of Property Seized: when the accused signs it without the assistance of counsel, the signature is an uncounselled extra-judicial confession and is inadmissible. Second, and just as important, it teaches that the inadmissibility of that receipt does not poison the laboratory reports on the drugs lawfully seized under a valid search warrant, and that taking a urine sample is not testimonial compulsion.

Procedural History

Gutang and three companions were charged before the Regional Trial Court of Pasig, Metro Manila, in separate criminal cases for violation of Sections 8 and 16 of Republic Act Number 6425, as amended. The charge against one companion, Oscar de Venecia, Jr., was dismissed after he voluntarily submitted himself for treatment and rehabilitation. Upon arraignment, Gutang pleaded not guilty, and a joint trial followed. He did not present any evidence. The trial court rendered judgment finding Gutang guilty beyond reasonable doubt in both cases and sentencing him to a penalty of six months of arresto mayor to two years and four months of prision correccional, with costs, and ordering the confiscated items forfeited in favor of the government.

Gutang appealed to the Court of Appeals, which affirmed the judgment of conviction. He then came to the Supreme Court by petition for review on certiorari, assigning as errors the admission of the Receipts of Property Seized and the laboratory reports, and the failure of the prosecution to overcome the presumption of innocence.

Facts

On March 5, 1994, elements of the Philippine National Police Narcotics Command enforced a search warrant at Gutang's residence on Ortigas Avenue, Greenhills, San Juan, Metro Manila. The warrant had been issued by Judge Martin Villarama, Jr. of the Regional Trial Court of Pasig. When the operatives entered, they found Gutang and his three companions inside the comfort room of the master's bedroom on the second floor. On a glass table inside that bedroom, the police found drug paraphernalia, including tooters, aluminum foil, two burners, fourteen disposable lighters, three weighing scales, plastic sealant used in repacking shabu, and transparent plastic bags of different sizes, together with about 1.4 grams of suspected marijuana fruiting tops and about 0.7 gram of suspected dried marijuana.

The team also inspected the cars parked inside the compound. The car of Noel Regala yielded a Winchester sunglasses case with suspected shabu residue and tooters in a black plastic container, while the cars of the other two companions yielded negative results. The items were brought to the crime laboratory at Camp Crame, Quezon City. Laboratory examination showed that the items taken from the master's bedroom were positive for marijuana and methamphetamine hydrochloride, or shabu, and the items from Regala's car were positive for shabu.

On the same day, the four men were brought to the crime laboratory, where a drug dependency test was requested. They complied and gave urine samples, which all tested positive for shabu. Gutang signed the Receipts of Property Seized without the assistance of counsel. At trial, the prosecution presented the testimony of the raiding team leader, who observed that the men were profusely sweating, had dry lips, whitish tongues, and pale faces, manifestations that they were under the influence of drugs. The evidence also showed that the search warrant was served only after months of surveillance, during which a confidential informant had even bought a gram of shabu from Gutang.

Issues

• Whether or not the Receipts of Property Seized bearing the petitioner's signature, obtained without the assistance of counsel, are admissible in evidence.
• Whether or not the Physical Science Reports and the Chemistry Report are inadmissible because they are mere conclusions drawn from the inadmissible Receipts of Property Seized.
• Whether or not the taking and examination of the petitioner's urine sample, without counsel during custodial investigation, violated his rights and rendered the laboratory reports inadmissible.
• Whether or not the presumption of innocence of the accused was overcome by proof beyond reasonable doubt.

Applicable Provisions

Section 2 of Article III of the Constitution provides:

Section 2. The right of the people to be secure in their person, houses, papers, and effects against unreasonable searches and seizures of whatever nature and for any purpose shall be inviolable, and no search warrant or warrant of arrest shall issue except upon probable cause to be determined personally by the judge after examination under oath or affirmation of the complainant and the witnesses he may produce, and particularly describing the place to be searched and the person or things to be seized.

This is the provision the petitioner invoked against the taking of his urine sample, and which the Court held was not violated because the warrant was valid and the sample was voluntarily given.

Ruling

On the first issue, the Court agreed with the petitioner. The signature of the accused on the Receipt of Property Seized, obtained without the assistance of counsel, is a declaration against his interest and a tacit admission of the crime charged, because mere unexplained possession of prohibited drugs is punishable by law. It is therefore tantamount to an uncounselled extra-judicial confession, which the Constitution prohibits, and the signatures on the two receipts are not admissible in evidence.

On the second issue, the Court disagreed with the petitioner. The inadmissibility of the receipts does not render the Physical Science Reports and the Chemistry Report inadmissible, because the examined materials were legally seized from the petitioner's bedroom on the strength of a valid search warrant, in his presence. The laboratory tests conducted on lawfully seized materials were legally and validly done, and the reports are admissible. Even without the receipts, the guilt of the petitioner was proven beyond reasonable doubt.

On the third issue, the Court held that the right to counsel begins only when a person is taken into custody and placed under investigation, that is, when the investigating officer starts to ask questions to elicit information, confession, or admissions. What the Constitution prohibits is the use of physical or moral compulsion to extort communication from the accused, not the inclusion of his body in evidence when it may be material. An accused may validly be compelled to be photographed or measured, or to move his body, without violating the proscription against testimonial compulsion. The examination of what came from the body of the accused was a mechanical act not meant to unearth undisclosed facts but to ascertain physical attributes determinable by simple observation. In any event, the record showed that the petitioner and his co-accused voluntarily gave their urine samples when requested.

On the fourth issue, the Court held that the presumption of innocence was overcome. The petitioner failed to satisfactorily explain the presence in his bedroom of the drug paraphernalia and prohibited drugs found on the table at the time of the raid, and his excuse that he was inside the comfort room deserved scant consideration since the comfort room is part of the master's bedroom. The raiding team leader testified to the physical manifestations of drug use, the search followed months of surveillance, and the police officers are presumed to have performed their duties regularly, no improper motive having been shown by the defense.

Doctrine

Three rules must be retained. First, the signature of the accused on a Receipt of Property Seized, obtained without the assistance of counsel, is inadmissible in evidence as an uncounselled extra-judicial confession, because it is a declaration against interest and a tacit admission of the crime charged. Second, the inadmissibility of that receipt does not render inadmissible the laboratory reports on the materials examined, where those materials were lawfully seized under a valid search warrant; the fruits of the poisonous tree doctrine does not reach evidence independently obtained through a lawful search. Third, the taking of a urine sample is not testimonial compulsion; it is a mechanical act to ascertain physical attributes, and the right to counsel attaches only when the person is taken into custody and the investigating officer begins to ask questions to elicit admissions.

Disposition

The petition was denied, and the decision of the Court of Appeals affirming the judgment of conviction of the Regional Trial Court was affirmed. Gutang lost; his conviction stood.

Remember This

The line worth memorizing is this: the signature on the Receipt of Property Seized without counsel is inadmissible, but the drugs lawfully seized and the laboratory reports on them remain admissible. Examiners use this case to test the fruits of the poisonous tree doctrine, the right to counsel in custodial investigation, and the distinction between testimonial compulsion and the examination of the accused's body.