because the constitutional guarantees embodied in the Bill of Rights are given and
FIRST DIVISION extend to all persons, both aliens and citizens.
[G.R. Nos. 112801-11. April 12, 1996]
THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, vs. WONG CHUEN MING, AU WING
CHEUNG, TAN SOI TEE, LIM CHAN FATT, CHIN KOK WEE, CHIN KIN YONG, YAP
BOON AH, CHIN KONG SONG, CHIN KIN FAH, CHAI MIN HUWA, and LIM NYUK
SUN, accused. WONG CHUEN MING and AU WING CHEUNG, accused-appellants.
SYLLABUS
1. CONSTITUTIONAL LAW; BILL OF RIGHTS; RIGHT TO COUNSEL AND DUE PROCESS; NOT
VIOLATED WHEN THERE IS NO PROOF THAT THE EFFECTIVENESS OF THE ACCUSED-
APPELLANTS PREVIOUS COUNSELS, WAS DIMINISHED BY THE FACT THAT THE LATTER
ALSO JOINTLY REPRESENTED THE OTHER ACCUSED. - Accused-appellants contention
that they were deprived of their right to counsel and due process when their previous
counsels also represented the other accused despite conflicting interests is not well-
taken. After going over the lengthy transcripts taken during the trial, the Court is
satisfied that said counsels tried to present all the defenses available to each of the
accused and that they did not, in any way, put in jeopardy accused-appellants
constitutional right to counsel. It does not appear from the records that the
effectiveness of accused-appellants previous counsels was diminished by the fact that
they also jointly represented the other accused.
2. ID.; ID.; RIGHTS OF THE ACCUSED UNDER CUSTODIAL INVESTIGATION; VIOLATION
THEREOF RENDERS THE EVIDENCE OBTAINED INADMISSIBLE. - At the outset, the
Court holds that the signatures of accused on the boxes, as well as on the plastic bags
containing shabu, are inadmissible in evidence. A careful study of the records reveals
that accused were never informed of their fundamental rights during the entire time
that they were under investigation. Specifically, accused were not informed of their
Miranda rights i.e. that they had the right to remain silent and to counsel and any
statement they might make could be used against them, when they were made to affix
their signatures on the boxes of Alpen Cereals while they were at the NAIA and again,
on the plastic bags when they were already taken in custody at Camp Crame. 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). They are, therefore, inadmissible as evidence for any
admission wrung from the accused in violation of their constitutional rights is
inadmissible against them.
3. ID.; ID.; ID.; EXTEND TO ALL PERSONS, BOTH ALIENS AND CITIZENS. - The fact that all
accused are foreign nationals does not preclude application of the exclusionary rule
4. ID.; ID.; RIGHT OF THE ACCUSED TO BE PRESUMED INNOCENT PREVAILS OVER THE
PRESUMPTION OF REGULARITY IN THE PERFORMANCE OF DUTIES. - Among the
prosecution witnesses, only customs examiner Danilo Gomez testified that all the
seized baggages, including those owned by accused-appellants Wong Chuen Ming and
Au Wing Cheung, contained a box or boxes of shabu. His testimony was given credence
by the trial court since he was presumed to have performed his duties in a regular
manner. However, Gomez testimony inculpating accused-appellants was not
corroborated by other prosecution witnesses. Customs collector Zenaida Bonifacio
stated during cross-examination that she cannot recall if each and everyone of accused
were found in possession of any box or boxes of Alpen Cereals. More significantly, the
testimony of NARCOM officer Capt. Rustico Francisco casts doubt on the claim of
Gomez that he recovered boxes of shabu from the baggages of accused-
appellants. While Capt. Francisco was categorical in stating that boxes of shabu were
recovered from the baggages belonging to the other nine (9) accused Malaysians, he
admitted that he was not sure whether Gomez actually recovered boxes of shabu from
accused-appellants baggages. 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.
5. REMEDIAL LAW; EVIDENCE; BURDEN OF PROOF IN CRIMINAL CASES; ACCUSED-
APPELLANT GUILT, MUST BE PROVED BEYOND REASONABLE DOUBT; CASE AT
BAR.There are other circumstances that militate against the conviction of accused-
appellants. First, accused-appellants are British (Hongkong) nationals while all the
other accused are Malaysians. It is difficult to imagine how accused-appellants could
have conspired with the other accused, who are total strangers, when they do not even
speak the same language.Second, overwhelming evidence consisting of testimonies of
accused-appellant Au Wing Cheungs superiors was presented to show that he was
a bona fide employee of Select Tours International Co., Ltd. Third, evidence showed
that accused-appellant Wong Chueng Ming was not originally part of the tour group
arranged by Select Tours but he was only accommodated by the latter 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 on
the transparent plastic bags containing shabu. All the foregoing circumstances taken
together with the findings of the Court persuade us to hold that accused-appellants
participation in the illegal transportation of shabu into the country has not been
proven beyond reasonable doubt. To paraphrase an admonition expressed by the
Court in a recent case, [m]uch as We share the abhorrence of the 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.
(People vs. Melosantos, 245 SCRA 560, 587)
APPEARANCES OF COUNSEL
The Solicitor General for plaintiff-appellee.
 Benjamin C. Santos & Ofelia Calcetas-Santos Law Offices and Santos, Parungao, Aquino
and Santos Law Offices for accused-appellants.
DECISION
PADILLA, J.:
Wong Chuen Ming and Au Wing Cheung appeal from a decision* of the Regional Trial
Court, Branch 109 of Pasay City, finding them, as well as their co-accused, guilty beyond
reasonable doubt of violating Section 15, Article III of Republic Act No. 6425, as amended,
otherwise known as the Dangerous Drugs Act of 1972.
Appellants Wong Chuen Ming and Au Wing Cheung, both British (Hongkong) nationals,
together with Tan Soi Tee, Chin Kok Wee, Lim Chan Fatt, Chin Kin Yang, Yap Boon Ah, Chin
Kong Song, Chin Kin Fah, Chai Min Huwa and Lim Nyuk Sun, all Malaysian nationals, were
charged with unlawfully transporting into the country Methamphetamine Hydrochloride or
shabu. Eleven (11) separate criminal informations were filed against all of the accused
individually, setting forth similar allegations:
That on or about the 7th day of September, 1991, about 1:00 oclock in the afternoon in
Pasay City, Philippines, and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the above-named
accused, did then and there willfully, unlawfully and feloniously transport without lawful
authority [3.40 kilograms in Criminal Case No. 91-1524 filed against Wong Chuen Ming; 3.45
kilograms in Criminal Case No.91-1525 to 91-1534 filed against all other accused individually],
more or less of Methamphetamine Hydrochloride, as (sic) regulated drug commonly known
as SHABU.
CONTRARY TO LAW.[1]
At their respective arraignments, all accused with the assistance of their counsels,
pleaded not guilty to the charge. The counsel of accused-appellant Au Wing Cheung earlier
filed a petition for reinvestigation and deferment of his arraignment but the same was
denied by the trial court for lack of merit. Accused-appellant Au Wing Cheung was arraigned
on 20 September 1991 and with the assistance of counsel, he likewise entered a plea of not
guilty.
The trial court conducted a joint and/or consolidated trial of all the cases upon motion
by the prosecution considering that the State had common testimonial and documentary
evidence against all accused. The prosecution presented four (4) witnesses, namely, (1)
Danilo Gomez, a customs examiner assigned at the Ninoy Aquino International Airport (NAIA)
Customs Office; (2) Zenaida Reyes Bonifacio, Chief of the Collection Division and Acting Duty
Collector of the Customs Office at the NAIA; (3) Elizabeth Ayonon, a forensic chemist at the
Philippine National Police Crime Laboratory, and (4) Capt. Rustico Francisco, Officer in Charge
(OIC) of the Philippine National Police Narcotics Command Detachment at the NAIA. The case
for the prosecution, as culled from the testimonies of its witnesses, may be summarized as
follows:
On 7 September 1991, at about 1:000 clock in the afternoon, Philippine Air Lines (PAL)
Flight PR No. 301 from Hongkong arrived at the Ninoy Aquino International Airport (NAIA) in
Pasay City, Metro Manila. Among the many passengers who arrived on board said flight were
the eleven (11) accused, namely, Wong Chuen Ming, Au Wing Cheung ,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. Their respective passports showed that Wong Chuen Ming and Au
Wing Cheung are the only British (Hongkong) nationals in the group while the rest are all
Malaysian nationals. Their passports also revealed that all the accused Malaysians (except
Lim Chan Fatt) originally came from Malaysia, traveled to Singapore and Hongkong before
proceeding to Manila. Upon the other hand, Wong Chuen Ming and Au Wing Cheung, as well
as Lim Chan Fatt, directly came from Hongkong to Manila. All accused arrived in Manila as a
tour group arranged by Select Tours International Co., Ltd. Accused-appellant Au Wing
Cheung, an employee of Select Tours International Co., Ltd. acted as their tour guide.
After passing through and obtaining clearance from immigration officers at the NAIA,
the tour group went to the baggage claim area to retrieve their respective checked-in
baggages.They placed the same in one pushcart and proceeded to Express Lane 5 which at
that time was manned by customs examiner Danilo Gomez. Au Wing Cheung handed to
Gomez the tour groups passengers manifest, their baggage declarations and their passports.
Gomez testified that he instructed the tour group to place their baggages on the
examiners table for inspection. They were directed to hold on to their respective baggages
while they wait for their turn to be examined. Chin Kong Songs baggage was first to be
examined by Gomez. Gomez put his hand inside the baggage and in the course of the
inspection, he found three (3) brown colored boxes similar in size to powdered milk boxes
underneath the clothes. The boxes were marked Alpen Cereals and as he found nothing
wrong with them, Gomez returned them inside the baggage and allowed Chin Kong Song to
go. Following the same procedure, Gomez next examined the baggage of Wong Chuen Ming.
Gomez again found and pulled out two (2) boxes of Alpen Cereals from said baggage and like
in the previous inspection, he found nothing wrong with them and allowed Wong Chuen
Ming to go. The third baggage to be examined belonged to Lim Nyuk Sun. When Gomez
pulled out another three (3) boxes of Alpen Cereals from said baggage, he became suspicious
and decided to open one of the boxes with his cutter. Inside the box was a plastic bag
containing white crystalline substance. Alarmed, Gomez immediately called the attention of
Appraiser Oreganan Palala and Duty Collector Zenaida Reyes Bonifacio to his discovery.[2]
Bonifacio testified that upon learning about the boxes containing the white crystalline
substance, she immediately ordered the tour group to get their baggages and proceed to the
district collectors office. Chin Kong Song and Wong Chuen Ming, who were previously cleared
by Gomez, were also brought inside together with the rest of the group. Inside the collectors
office, Gomez continued to examine the baggages of the other members of the tour group.
He allegedly found that each baggage contained one (1), two (2) or three (3) boxes similar to
those previously found in the baggages of Chin Kong Song, Wong Chuen Ming and Lim Nyuk
Sun. A total of thirty (30) boxes of Alpen Cereals containing white crystalline substance were
allegedly recovered from the baggages of the eleven (11) accused. As Gomez pulled out
these boxes from their respective baggages, he bundled said boxes by putting masking tape
around them and handed them over to Bonifacio. Upon receipt of these bundled boxes,
Bonifacio called out the names of 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. Also present at this time were Capt. Rustico Francisco and his men,
agents of the Bureau of Customs and several news reporters. A few minutes later, District
Collector Antonio Marquez arrived with General Job Mayo and then NBI Deputy Director
Mariano Mison.[3]
Capt. Francisco testified that shortly after all boxes of Alpen Cereals were recovered, he
conducted a field test on a sample of the white crystalline substance. His test showed that
the substance was indeed shabu. Capt. Francisco immediately informed the eleven (11)
accused that they were under arrest. Thereafter, all accused, as well as the Alpen Cereals
boxes which were placed inside a big box, were brought to Camp Crame.[4]
At Camp Crame, accused were asked to identify their signatures on the boxes and after
having identified them, they were again made to sign on the plastic bags containing white
crystalline substance inside the boxes bearing their signatures. The examination by Elizabeth
Ayonon, a forensic chemist at the Philippine National Police Crime Laboratory at Camp
Crame, confirmed that the white crystalline substance recovered from accused was
shabu.[5] The total weight of shabu recovered was placed at 34.45 kilograms.[6]
For their part, the defense interposed by all accused was basically anchored on the
testimony of their 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 although
he denied any knowledge that they contained shabu. Lim Chan Fatt testified that except for
Chin Kong Song and Lim Nyuk Sun, all other accused were unknown or complete strangers to
him until their trip to the Philippines on 7 September 1991. With respect to Chin Kong Song
and Lim Nyuk Sun, Lim Chan Fatt allegedly met them at his boarding house in Hongkong
where the two (2) temporarily lived a few days before said trip. According to Lim Chan Fatt,
prior to their departure date, a certain Ah Hong, a co-boarder and a Hongkong businessman,
approached him and asked him if he could kindly bring with him boxes of cereals to the
Philippines. Ah Hong promised Lim Chan Fatt that a certain Ah Sing will get these boxes from
him at the Philippine airport and for this trouble, Ah Sing will see to it that Lim Chan Fatt will
have a good time in the Philippines. Ah Hong allegedly even opened one (1) box to show that
it really contained cereals. Lim Chan Fatt acceded to Ah Hongs request as he allegedly found
nothing wrong with it. Consequently, Ah Hong delivered to Lim Chan Fatt thirty (30) boxes of
Alpen Cereals. Since his baggage could not accommodate all thirty (30) boxes, Lim Chan Fatt
requested Chin Kong Song and Lim Nyuk Sun to accommodate some of the boxes in their
baggages. Lim Chan Fatt claimed that he entrusted five (5) boxes to Chin Kong Song and
another five (5) to Lim Nyuk Sun. He allegedly placed four (4) boxes inside a hand carried
plastic bag while the rest were put inside his baggage.[7]
On the basis of this testimony, the defense endeavored to show that only Lim Chan
Fatt, Chin Kong Song and Lim Nyuk Sun were responsible for bringing boxes of Alpen Cereals
into the country and even then they cannot be held liable for violation of Section 15, Article II
of R.A. No. 6425, as amended, as they allegedly had no knowledge that these boxes
contained shabu.
The defense also presented as witnesses accused Chin Kong Song and Lim Nyuk Sun
and accused-appellants Au Wing Cheung and Wong Chuen Ming. Accused-appellants denied
that boxes of Alpen Cereals were recovered from their baggages. They claimed that they
affixed their signatures on the boxes only because they were threatened by police authorities
who were present during the examination inside the collectors office. Accused-appellant Au
Wing Cheung maintained that he was a bona fide employee of Select Tours International Co.,
Ltd. and that he had no prior knowledge that the tour group he was supposed to accompany
to the Philippines brought boxes containing shabu. [8] For his part, accused-appellant Wong
Chuen Ming tried to dissociate himself from the other accused by testifying that he was not a
part of their group. He claimed that he was originally booked with another travel agency,
Wing Ann Travel Co., for a five-day Cebu tour. This Cebu tour was allegedly cancelled due to
insufficient number of clients and accused-appellant was subsequently transferred to and
accommodated by Select Tours.[9] The other accused who did not take the witness stand
opted to adopt as their own all testimonial and documentary evidence presented in court for
the defense.
On 29 November 1991, the trial court rendered judgment, the dispositive part of which
reads as follows:
xxx xxx xxx
In view of all the foregoing evidences, the Court finds that the prosecution has proven the
guilt of all the accused in all the criminal cases filed against them for Violation of
Section 15, Art. III, R.A. 6425 as amended and hereby sentences them as follows:
In Criminal Case No. 91-1524 entitled People of the Philippines vs. WONG CHUEN MING, the
Court sentences Wong Chuen Ming to life imprisonment and a fine of Twenty Thousand
(P20,000.00) Pesos for Violation of Section 15, Art. III of R.A. 6425 as amended.
In Criminal Case No. 91-1525 entitled People of the Philippines vs. CHIN KIN YONG, the Court
hereby sentences Chin Kin Yong to life imprisonment and a fine of Twenty Thousand
(P20,000.00) Pesos for Violation 15 (sic), Art. III, R.A. 6425 as amended.
In Criminal Case No. 91-1526 entitled People of the Philippines vs. AU WING CHEUNG, the
Court hereby sentences Au Wing Cheung to life imprisonment and a fine of Twenty Thousand
(P20,000.00) Pesos for Violation of Section 15, Art. III, R.A. 6425 as amended.
In Criminal Case No. 91-1527 entitled People of the Philippines vs. YAP BOON AH, the Court
hereby sentences Yap Boon Ah to life imprisonment and a fine of Twenty Thousand
(P20,000.00) Pesos for Violation of Section 15, Art. III, R.A. 6425 as amended.
In Criminal Case No. 91-1528 entitled People of the Philippines vs. TAN SOT TEE, the Court
hereby sentences Tan Soi Tee to life imprisonment and a fine of Twenty Thousand
(P20,000.00) Pesos for Violation of Section 15, Art. III, R.A. 6425 as amended.
In Criminal Case No. 91-1529 entitled People of the Philippines vs. CHIN KONG SONG, the
Court hereby sentences Chin Kong Song to life imprisonment and a fine of Twenty Thousand
(P20,000.00) Pesos for Violation of Section 15, Art. III, R.A. 6425 as amended.
In Criminal Case No. 91-1530 entitled People of the Philippines vs. CHIN KOK WEE, the Court
hereby sentences Chin Kok Wee to life imprisonment and a fine of Twenty Thousand
(P20,000.00) Pesos for Violation of Section 15, Art. III, R.A. 6425 as amended.
In Criminal Case No. 91-1531 entitled People of the Philippines vs. CHIN KIN FAH, the Court
sentences Chin Kin Fah to life imprisonment and a fine of Twenty Thousand (P20,000.00)
Pesos for Violation of Section 15, Art. III, R.A. 6425 as amended.
In Criminal Case No. 91-1532 entitled People of the Philippines vs. LIM CHAN FATT, the Court
hereby sentences Lim Chan Fatt to life imprisonment and a fine of Twenty Thousand
(P20,000.00) Pesos for Violation of Section 15, Art. III, R.A. 6425 as amended.
In Criminal Case No. 91-1533 entitled People of the Philippines vs. CHAI MIN HUWA, the
Court hereby sentences Chai Min Huwa to life imprisonment and a fine of Twenty Thousand
(P20,000.00) Pesos for Violation of Section 15, Art. III, R.A. 6425 as amended.
In Criminal Case No. 91-1534 entitled People of the Philippines vs. LIM NYUK SUN, the Court
hereby sentences Lim Nyuk Sun to life imprisonment and a fine of Twenty Thousand
(P20,000.00) Pesos for Violation of Section 15, R.A. 6425 as amended.
Likewise, the thirty (30) Alpen cereal boxes found to contain a total of 34.450 kilograms of
Methamphetamine Hydrochloride or shabu is hereby forfeited and the same is hereby
ordered burned and/or destroyed in the presence of this Court, representative of the
Department of Justice, National Bureau of Investigation, Dangerous Drugs Board, Bureau of
Customs and the Narcotics Command (Narcom) at the San Lazaro crematorium before the
same falls in the hands of future victims and further compound the already epidemic
proportions of the drug menace in the country.
SO ORDERED.[10]
Thereafter, all accused through counsel filed with the trial court their joint notice of
appeal.[11] However, on 7 April 1992, accused Chin Kong Song, Lim Nyuk Sun, Chin Kok Wee
and Chai Min Huwa withdrew their notice of appeal.[12] This Court then directed those
accused who did not withdraw their appeal to file their respective appellants brief. Only
accused-appellants Wong Chuen Ming and Au Wing Cheung filed their joint appeal brief,
hence, the Court was constrained to dismiss the appeal pertaining to accused Lim Chan Fatt,
Ching Kin Yong, Tan Soi Tee, Yap Boon Ah and Chin Kin Fah. [13] Consequently, the Court is
now only concerned with the appeal of accused-appellants Wong Chuen Ming and Au Wing
Cheung as the decision of the trial court has already become final and executory with respect
to accused Chin Kong Song, Lim Nyuk Sun, Chin Kok Wee, Chai Min Huwa, Lim Chan Fatt, Chi
Kin Yong, Tan Soi Tee, Yap Boon Ah and Chin Kin Fah.
In their appeal brief, accused-appellants Wong Chuen Ming and Au Wing Cheung make
the following assignment of errors:
I.
THE LOWER COURT ERRED WHEN IT FAILED TO REALIZE THAT THE JOINT REPRESENTATION
BY PREVIOUS COUNSEL OF APPELLANTS WITH THE GROUP OF NINE MALAYSIANS ACCUSED
NOT ONLY PREJUDICED THE FORMER BUT ALSO AMOUNTED TO THE DEPRIVATION OF THEIR
CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT TO EFFECTIVE COUNSEL AND DUE PROCESS.
II.
THE LOWER COURT ERRED IN FAILING TO HOLD THAT THE APPREHENDING CUSTOMS
OFFICERS VIOLATED APPELLANTS MIRANDA RIGHTS.
III.
THE LOWER COURT ERRED IN NOT EXCLUDING THE INADMISSIBLE EVIDENCE OBTAINED IN
VIOLATION OF APPELLANTS MIRANDA RIGHTS.
IV.
THE LOWER COURT ERRED WHEN IT RELIED ON THE PRESUMPTION OF REGULARITY IN THE
DISCHARGE OF OFFICIAL DUTIES, DESPITE THE PAUCITY AND LACK OF CREDIBILITY OF THE
PROSECUTIONS EVIDENCE.
V.
THE LOWER COURT ERRED WHEN IT DISREGARDED THE CLEAR ABSENCE OF ANIMUS
POSSIDENDI ON THE PART OF THE APPELLANTS.[14]
Accused-appellants contention that they were deprived of their right to counsel and
due process when their previous counsels also represented the other accused despite
conflicting interests is not well-taken. After going over the lengthy transcripts taken during
the trial, the Court is satisfied that said counsels tried to present all the defenses available to
each of the accused and that they did not, in any way, put in jeopardy accused-appellants
constitutional right to counsel. It does not appear from the records that the effectiveness of
accused-appellants previous counsels was diminished by the fact that they also jointly
represented the other accused.
The Court, however, finds merit in the other contentions raised by accused-appellants
in their appeal brief. These contentions shall be discussed jointly considering that the issues
they raise are interrelated and deal with the question of whether or not the guilt of accused-
appellants was proven beyond reasonable doubt.
At the outset, the Court holds that the signatures of accused on the boxes, as well as
on the plastic bags containing shabu, are inadmissible in evidence. A careful study of the
records reveal that accused were never informed of their fundamental rights during the
entire time that they were under investigation. Specifically, accused were not informed of
their Miranda rights i.e. that they had the right to remain silent and to counsel and any
statement they might make could be used against them, when they were made to affix their
signatures on the boxes of Alpen Cereals while they were at the NAIA and again, on the
plastic bags when they were already taken in custody at Camp Crame.
Prosecution witness Danilo Gomez admitted this fatal lapse during cross-examination:
Atty. Tomas:
 What did you tell these passengers before you made them sign this bunch
of cartons?
A: It was Collector Bonifacio who call (sic) their names and as soon as their
luggages are examined and pulled, the three boxes, I wrap it in a masking
tape and requested them to sign their names.
Q: You just told them to sign this matter?
A: Yes.
Q: No preliminaries?
A: No.
Q: At that time that each one of the passengers were made to sign, was there any
lawyer representing them?
A: None.
Q: You did not even inform them of their constitutional rights?
A: No.[15] (Italics supplied)
Capt. Rustico Francisco also admitted that he did not inform the accused of their rights
when he placed them under arrest:
Atty. Zoleta:
So, after the result of that sample examined which yielded positive result,
you immediately placed the accused under arrest, is that correct?
A: I informed that that they are under arrest for bringing transporting to the
country suspected methamphetamine hydrochloride or shabu.
x x x xxx xxx
Q: How did you announce your authority to the accused?
A: I told Mr. Paul Au to tell his companions that we are placing them under arrest
for transporting methamphetamine hydrochloride into the country.
Q: And it is at this very moment that you informed them of their right, is that
correct?
A: I did not inform them of their right.[16] (Italics supplied)
It is also not shown from the testimony of Elizabeth Ayonon that accused were
informed of their rights when they were again made to affix their signatures on the plastic
bags:
Atty. Tomas:
You said all the signatures were already there when brought to your
laboratory for examination. With that answer, do you mean to tell even the
signature inside the cereal box and transparent plastic bag were already
there when you examined said specimen?
A: Only the brown box labelled Alpen.
Q: Who made the signature inside the cereal box and on the transparent plastic
bag?
A: Me, sir, because I asked them to identify. The interpreter asked them to
identify their signature. So, in return I have to tell them please affix your
signature for proper identification since they are reflected on the box.
Q: What did you tell the accused when you required them to make their
signatures?
A: The interpreter told them to affix their signature for proper identification on
the transparent plastic bag since their signature appeared on the carton
box.[17]
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). They are, therefore, inadmissible as evidence for any admission wrung
from the accused in violation of their constitutional rights is inadmissible against
them.[18] 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. [19]
Without the signatures of accused on the boxes of Alpen Cereals and on the
transparent plastic bags, the prosecution is left with the testimonies of its witnesses to
establish that all the eleven (11) 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 Wong Chuen Ming and Au Wing
Cheung, contained a box or boxes of shabu. His testimony was given credence by the trial
court since he was presumed to have performed his duties in a regular manner. However,
Gomez testimony inculpating accused-appellants was not corroborated by other prosecution
witnesses.
Customs collector Zenaida Bonifacio stated during cross-examination that she cannot
recall if each and everyone of accused were found in possession of any box or boxes of Alpen
Cereals.[20] More significantly, the testimony of NARCOM officer Capt. Rustico Francisco casts
doubt on the claim of Gomez that he recovered boxes of shabu from the baggages of
accused-appellants:
Court:
Clarificatory questions from the Court, you said that you were at the arrival
area immediately after the arrival of all these accused when your attention
was called by the customs examiner, is that correct?
A: Yes. Your Honor.
 Court: 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
So that you can truly say that you could note or witness the actual witnesses.[22]
examinations of the baggages of all the accused persons here?
There are other circumstances that militate against the conviction of accused-
A: Yes, Your Honor. appellants. First, accused-appellants are British (Hongkong) nationals while all the other
Court: accused are Malaysians. It is difficult to imagine how accused-appellants could have
conspired with the other accused, who are total strangers, when they do not even speak the
You realize, of course, the seriousness of the charges against these same language.Second, overwhelming evidence consisting of testimonies of accused-
persons? appellant Au Wing Cheungs superiors was presented to show that he was
a bonafide employee of Select Tours International Co., Ltd. Third, evidence showed that
A: Yes, Your Honor. accused-appellant Wong Chuen Ming was not originally part of the tour group arranged by
Court: Select Tours but he was only accommodated by the latter at the last minute when his
package tour to Cebu was cancelled by Wing Ann Travel Co. Finally, as testified to by Capt.
As a matter of fact, they could stay in jail for life? Francisco, both accused-appellants adamantly refused to sign on the transparent plastic bags
containing shabu:
A: Yes, Your Honor.
Court:
Court:
You made mention about two persons two of the accused who refused to
Now in all candor and sincerity, did you actually see with your own two eyes sign the plastic bags containing the suspected shabu. Did you say that?
any box being recovered from the bag of Au Wing Cheung? If you are not
sure, dont answer. A: Yes, Your Honor.
A: I am not sure. Court:
Court: Did you not go out of your way to inquire the reasons of the two for not
wanting to sign knowing of course that your duty as a law officer is not only
How about from the bag of Wong Chuen Ming, the other tourist from
to see to it that the guilty are prosecuted but to spare the innocent? Did
Hongkong. In all candor and sincerity did you actually see with your own
you inquire why they refused to sign?
two eyes a box being recovered from his bag?
A: I inquired.
A: I am not sure.
Court:
Court:
What was the reason of the two?
There are nine other accused in these cases. In all fairness and sincerity,
other than the two, did you actually see with your own two eyes boxes of A: They told me their baggages did not contain any prohibited drugs.
cereals being recovered from the bags of the other Malaysians accused in
these cases? Court:

A: For the nine others, I am very sure, I am very sure that cereal boxes containing Now again, think very carefully and try to recall vividly the time when these
shabu, I am very sure. two refused to sign and go over the faces of the eleven accused and tell the
court if you can remember or recall the looks of the two accused who
Court: refused to sign. Before you do that look very carefully at their faces.
Without any exception? A: Wong Chuen Ming, the one with the tattoo.
A: Yes, Your Honor, for the nine.[21] (Italics supplied) Q: Now, you mentioned two persons look at the faces of the 10 others. Aside
from the one with a tattoo and look for the other one.
While Capt. Francisco was categorical in stating that boxes of shabu were recovered
from the baggages belonging to the other nine (9) accused Malaysians, he admitted that he A: The other one is the tour leader.[23]
was not sure whether Gomez actually recovered boxes of shabu from accused-appellants
baggages. Hence, the presumption of regularity in the performance of duties accorded to
 All the foregoing circumstances taken together with the findings of the Court persuade
us to hold that accused-appellants participation in the illegal transportation of shabu into the
country has not been proven beyond reasonable doubt. To paraphrase an admonition
expressed by the Court in a recent case, [m]uch as We share the abhorrence of the
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.[24]

WHEREFORE, the decision appealed from is hereby REVERSED and another one
entered ACQUITTING Wong Chuen Ming and Au Wing Cheung of the crime charged, based on
reasonable doubt. Their immediate release is hereby ORDERED unless they are detained for
some other lawful cause. Costs de oficio.

SO ORDERED.

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

 Republic of the Philippines
SUPREME COURT
Manila
FIRST DIVISION
G.R. No. 87263 June 18, 1990
SPOUSES FLAVIO DEMAMAY AND ESTELITA DEMAMAY, petitioners,
vs.
COURT OF APPEALS, HON. SALVADOR P. DE GUZMAN, JR., LUZON DEVELOPMENT BANK
AND SPS. CESAR DE RAMOS AND CECILIA DE RAMOS, respondents.
Ernesto M. Miaquez for petitioners.
Eusebio Navarro, Jr. for respondent LDB.
Arnold Magparangalan for spouses Cesar de Ramos.
GANCAYCO, J.:
The issue as to whether or not an action for annulment of sale, reconveyance or similar
proceeding is a previous question before an action for ejectment or unlawful detainer may
proceed is the focus of the dispute in this petition.
Petitioners were the registered owners of a parcel of land located in Calamba, Laguna
covered by Transfer Certificate of Title No. T-35475 of the Register of Deeds of Laguna with
an area of about 240 square meters. They mortgaged the same to the Luzon Development
Bank (LDB for short) for the sum of P10,000.00 payable in installments in five years
beginning July 29, 1977. As petitioners defaulted in the payment of the loan the LDB extra
judicially foreclosed the mortgage on July 30, 1981 so the property was sold at public
auction to LDB as the highest bidder. Upon failure of the petitioners to redeem the
property within one year from the sale, title over the same was consolidated in favor of
LDB on September 13, 1982 so that petitioners' title was canceled and TCT No. T-89122 was
issued to LDB.
On July 26, 1986, LDB filed in the Regional Trial Court of Laguna a petition for the issuance
of a writ of possession docketed as RTC SLRC Case No. 111-83-C. Petitioners filed an
opposition thereto. On February 26, 1986, the trial court issued an order authorizing the
Clerk of Court to issue the corresponding writ of possession which was returned
unsatisfied. On June 20, 1986, LDB filed a motion for demolition which was opposed by
petitioners. Nevertheless the trial court granted the motion. A motion for reconsideration
of said order was filed by petitioners wherein it was alleged that LDB was no longer the
owner of the property inasmuch as it had already sold the same to spouses Cecilia de
Ramos and Cesar de Ramos and the title thereto of LDB had been canceled and replaced by
TCT No. T-89122 in the name of said Ramos spouses, who have elected to file an unlawful
detainer case against petitioners. The motion was granted.
On August 8, 1986, petitioners filed an action against the Ramos spouses and LDB in the
Regional Trial Court of Laguna for annulment of sale, reconveyance of property with
damages. The suit was docketed as RTC Civil Case No. 1031-86.
On August 13, 1986, the Ramos spouses filed an action for unlawful detainer against
petitioners in the Municipal Trial Court of Calamba, Laguna docketed as Civil Case No.
2405. Petitioners filed their answer with crass claim alleging among others the pendency of
the annulment case before the RTC. On motion of LDB the said cross claim was dismissed.
On June 29, 1987 a decision was rendered ordering petitioners to vacate the property in
question within sixty (60) days from receipt thereof, to pay attorney's fees in the amount
of P2,000.00 and the cost of the suit. The counterclaim was dismissed. Petitioners appealed
the decision to the Regional Trial Court of Laguna but the same was affirmed. They filed a
petition for review in the Court of Appeals wherein on October 7, 1988 a decision was
promulgated dismissing the petition with costs against petitioners.1 A motion for
reconsideration filed by petitioners was denied by the appellate court in a resolution dated
March 2, 1989.
Meanwhile the annulment case was dismissed by the trial court on the ground of res
judicata. Petitioners appealed to the Court of Appeal wherein on September 21, 1988 a
decision was rendered setting aside the appealed order of dismissal and remanding the
records to the lower court for further proceedings and adjudication on the merits. 2 In said
case the appellate court ruled that the petition for a writ of possession is not a bar to the
prosecution of the annulment case.
Hence, the herein petition for review on certiorari wherein petitioners raise, as errors
allegedly committed by the appellate court in grave abuse of discretion, namely: (1) the
failure to declare that the Municipal Trial Court has no jurisdiction over the unlawful
detainer case due to the failure to allege in the complaint that private respondents Ramos
spouses had prior physical possession of the property; and (2) that the proceedings in said
unlawful detainer case should be suspended pending the resolution of the action for
annulment of the sale, reconveyance and damages pending before the Regional Trial Court
of Laguna.
On May 24, 1989 the petition was denied for failure of petitioners to sufficiently show that
the respondent court had committed any reversible error in its questioned judgment. A
motion for reconsideration was filed by petitioners to which an opposition was filed by
private respondents. The parties were then required to submit their simultaneous
memoranda. This requirement has been complied with by the parties.
On the first issue, petitioners contend that as they continued to be in physical possession
of the property and in the absence of the jurisdictional allegation in the complaint for
unlawful detainer that private respondents had prior physical possession of the property
the lower court did not acquire jurisdiction over the case.
In the questioned decision of the respondent court dated October 7, 1988, the following
disquisition was made:
Under the provisions of Rule 70 of the Rules of Court, an unlawful
detainer case may be filed by any landlord, vendor or vendee (like
herein private respondents) against whom the possession of any land or
building is unlawfully withheld after the expiration or termination of
the right to hold possession by virtue of any contract express or
implied. Petitioners' right to Possess the property in question
terminated from the moment they ceased to be the owners thereof and
the transfer of said ownership to Luzon Development Bank. This was
bolstered by the issuance of a writ of possession turning over the
possession thereof to the Bank, which in turn transferred its right of
ownership or possession to private respondents, who in turn became
the owners thereof entitled to its possession with the issuance in their
name of the title to the property.
Premises considered. We find no reversible error of law or fact in the
decision under review. 3
We agree.
It is true that in forcible entry cases the plaintiff must allege and prove that he was in prior
physical possession of the property in litigation until he was deprived thereof by the
defendant. However, in unlawful detainer cases, the plaintiff need not have been in prior
physical possession of the property.
The second issue is likewise devoid of merit. Pending in the Regional Trial Court (RTC),
Laguna is an action for the annulment of the sale to private respondent, the foreclosure of
mortgage, reconveyance and damages. Petitioners claims that the proceedings in the
ejectment case must be suspended until after the said annulment case is resolved by the
Court.
The Court takes note of the fact that some lessees, realizing that the action for unlawful
detainer will be filed against them shortly, "jump the gun" on the lessor by going to court
first. They institute, for instance, actions for consignation of rentals, or for specific
performance of alleged agreement for renewal of lease or as in this case for annulment of
the sale, etc.
The advantage of having the question of possession of the leased premises determined in
such an ordinary action of consignation, breach of contract or annulment of sale, instead of a
summary ejectment suit, are obvious. The proceedings are not summary, and presumably
would take longer than an action for unlawful detainer. The judgment against the lessee is
not immediately executory and there is no need to file a supersedeas bond to stay execution,
and the remedy of preliminary mandatory injunction is not usually available to the lessor.
The question is, may the pendency of such an action for consignation or specific
performance, or annulment of a sale, as in this case, be successfully pleaded in abatement of
an action for unlawful detainer? This Court has invariably given a negative answer.
In Lim Si vs. Lim, 5 the lessee disagreed with the increased rental rate imposed by the lessor
and brought in the Court of First Instance (CFI) a suit for consignation of rentals praying that
the court fix the rate thereof and he be authorized to remain in the premises in the
meantime. The lessor moved to dismiss, arguing that the issue raised should not be resolved
in an action of consignation but in an unlawful detainer suit. Later, the lessor did in fact file
an ejectment action against the lessee. The trial court dismissed the action. In sustaining the
dismissal this Court citing Pue, et al. vs. Gonzales, 6 held that consignation —
is not the proper proceedings to determine the relation between landlord
and tenant, the period of life of the lease of tenancy, the reasonableness
of the amount of rental, the right of the tenant to keep the premises
against the will of the landlord, etc. (which) questions should be decided
in a case of ejectment or detainer.
and ruled as follows:
The principle ... exactly covers the point at issue, i.e., that the
disagreement between a lessor and a lessee as to the amount of rent to
be paid by a lessee cannot be decided in an action of consignation but in
that of forcible entry and unlawful detainer that the lessor institutes
when the lessee refuses to pay the lessor the rents that he has fixed for
the property. It may also be added that consignation is proper when
there is a debt to be paid, which the debtor desires to pay and which the
creditor refuses to receive, or neglects to receive, or cannot receive by
reason of his absence. The purpose of consignation is to have the
obligation or indebtedness extinguished. In the case at bar, plaintiff seeks
to have the obligation determined and fixed, hence his action should not
be one of consignation.
For the foregoing reasons, we hold that plaintiff has no cause of action
against defendant under the facts alleged in his complaint; that
consignation is not the proper remedy; that it is the defendant who has
the right or cause of against the plaintiff because the latter refuses to pay
the rents fixed but does not leave the property; and that if the plaintiff
claims that the amount of rents demanded by the defendant is
unreasonable and he desires to have it fixed judicially, he may set forth
the above facts as defenses in the action of ejectment filed by the
defendant against him. ...
The same ruling was rendered by this Court in Teodoro vs. Mirasol 7 where an action for
specific performance to compel the lessor to renew the lease was held to be a proper
defense in the ejectment suit. 8 In the same vein this Court held that an action for
reconveyance or action for reivindicatoria or quieting of title or injunction or reformation
may not be pleaded in abatement of an ejectment suit. 9

The case of Quiambao v. Osorio, 10 invoked by petitioners cannot support their cause. In said
case, the ejectment suit was sought to be suspended on the ground of the pendency of an
administrative case in the Office of the Land Authority where the agreement of sale of the lot
in question, on which respondents based their prior possession, had already been canceled
by the Land Authority. Thus, this Court held the prudent course for the trial court to do is to
hold the ejectment proceeding, until after the determination of the administrative case.
There is no analogy in the facts of the said case with the present case.

WHEREFORE, the petition is DENIED with costs against petitioners.

SO ORDERED.

Narvasa (Chairman), Cruz and Medialdea, JJ., concur.