CASE DIGEST: HO WAI PANG vs. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES. G.R. No. 176229. October 19, 2011

FACTS: 

13 Hong Kong nationals who came to the Philippines as tourists arrived at the NAIA. Customs Eaminer Gilda Cinco examined the baggage of the accused where some of the bags contained a chocolate boxes of the same size. Becoming suspicious, Cinco took out one of the boxes and opened it. She then saw inside the chocolate box a white crystalline substance contained in a white transparent plastic. The substance were confiscated and examined by Forensic Chemist. The findings show that the samples were positive to be Shabu. 

Petitioners were charged for a violation of Republic Act 6425, otherwise known as the Dangerous Drugs Act of 1972.

Facts shown that petitioners were not actually assisted by lawyers during Custodial Investigation. Thus, the Court found the petitioner's right to Custodial Investigation was indeed violated. However, it also ruled that the other evidence obtained during such investigation are sufficient to prove his guilt.

Relying on the violation of his right to custodial investigation, petitioner contented that the evidence taken during such investigation shall be declared inadmissible. 

ISSUE:

Whether other evidence taken during an invalid custodial investigation were admissible in court.

RULING:

Yes. While there is no dispute that petitioner's right to custodial investigation was violated, the court explained that constitutional provision on custodial investigation prohibited as evidence only those confessions and admissions of the accused against him. It only prohibits extrajudicial confession made during custodial investigation and this provision does not include or affects the admissibility of other evidence obtained during such investigation, provided they are relevant to the issue and are not otherwise excluded by laws or rules.

In this case, petitioner did not make any confession or admission during his custodial investigation. The prosecution did not present any extrajudicial confession. The court, in finding the accused guilty of the crime relied on the testimonies of the witnesses and the on the existence of the confiscated shabu. Furthermore, the accused's basis of conviction was actually on the strength of his having been caught in flagrante delicto transporting shabu into the country and not on the basis of any extrajudicial confession.