Gomez and Immaculata entered a plea of "not guilty" to the

FIRST DIVISION accusation.[3] The prosecution moved to discharge Gomez so that

he could be a state witness.[4] The motion was strongly opposed
by Immaculata.[5] Eventually, the trial court refused to discharge
[G.R. No. 101817. March 26, 1997] Gomez holding that, among other things, "it (was) evident
throughout his affidavit that his only purpose in executing the
same was to exculpate himself and (to) lay the blame on his co-
accused."[6]
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, The events that transpired leading to the filing of the charges
vs. EDUARDO GOMEZ and FELIPE were recounted in good detail during the trial of the case.
IMMACULATA, accused, FELIPE
On 27 February 1990, David, an employer[7] of Immaculata
IMMACULATA, accused-appellant. sent the latter to Bangkok, Thailand, to canvass ready-to-wear
clothes.[8] David and Gomez followed Immaculata about a week
DECISION later (04 March 1990). Immaculata fetched the two at the
VITUG, J.: Bangkok Airport. Immaculata, David and Gomez proceeded to
and stayed at the Union Towers Hotel.[9] After two days, they
Quite unfortunately, in the war on drugs, almost invariably, it transferred to the apartment of one Lito Tuazon where they spent
is the little fellow who easily gets the axe but the barons come out the rest of their stay in Bangkok.[10]
unscathed. On 14 March 1990, Immaculata, Gomez and Aya Yupangco
Accused Eduardo Gomez, a bartender, and Felipe left Bangkok and boarded Manila-bound flight numbered PR-
Immaculata, a former bus driver, were implicated in the crime of 731. Immaculata and Yupangco occupied seats No. 52A and No.
transporting twenty (20) kilograms of heroin, estimated to be 54D. Gomez was on the same flight.[11] He checked-in two
worth $40,000,000.00,[1] contained in two golfbags. Arraigned, golfbags, and he was issued interline claim tags No. PR 77-28-
tried and ultimately convicted, Gomez and Immaculata were each 71[12] and No. 77-28-72.[13]
meted the penalty of reclusion perpetua and ordered to pay In Manila, Gomez deposited the two golfbags with the
a P20,000.00 fine by the Regional Trial Court of Pasay City, interline baggage room for his connecting flight from Manila to
Branch 113,[2] in Criminal Case No. 90-4717. San Francisco via United Airlines ("UAL") flight numbered 058
Also charged, along with the duo, with having violated scheduled to depart the following morning (15 March 1990). The
Section 4, Article II, in relation to Section 21, Article IV, of golfbags were kept in the transit rack baggage along with other
Republic Act No. 6425 (the Dangerous Drugs Act of 1972), as pieces of luggage destined for San Francisco via the UAL flight.[14]
amended, were Aya Yupangco, Art David, Lito Tuazon and Well before flight time on 15 March 1990, Romeo Dumag, a
Benito Cunanan, who all were able to evade arrest. Gomez, an customs policeman at the Ninoy Aquino International Airport
American citizen of Filipino ancestry, surrendered to the officer-in- ("NAIA"), was requested by Customs Collector Edgardo de Leon
charge of the then Clark Air Force Base in Angeles City, while to help facilitate the checking-in of Eduardo Gomez. Dumag
Immaculata was apprehended by agents of the National Bureau sought from his security officer, a certain Capt. Reyes, the latter's
of Investigation ("NBI"). permission. Having received the go-signal, Dumag accepted from
De Leon the ticket and passport of Gomez. Dumag proceeded to
the UAL check-in counter. The airline's lady staff, Annabelle weight of 20.1159 kilograms.[22] The examination by the
Lumba, directed Dumag to first claim the passenger's items to be PAFSECOM personnel was witnessed by the NAIA manager, a
checked-in at the interline baggage room.[15] representative of the UAL and other customs personnel.[23]
At the interline baggage room, Dumag spoke to Michael Initial PAFSECOM investigation established that the two
Angelo Benipayo, a PAL employee assigned at the NAIA central golfbags were interline baggages which arrived on 14 March
baggage division and baggage handling section, and presented 1990 on board PAL flight PR-731 from Bangkok. The identity of
the two claim tags of Gomez together with the latter's passport the owner was traced, through UAL claim tags No. 594513 and
and plane ticket. Convinced that Dumag had been duly No. 594514, to Gomez. Before turning over the golfbags and the
authorized to retrieve the baggages, Benipayo released, upon the thirty-one packs of white powder, together with the UAL claim
approval of a customs examiner named Nick,[16] the two golfbags tags, to the authorities,[24] the packs were first individually weighed
wrapped in blue cloth. To acknowledge the release, Dumag at the office of the District Collector of NAIA in the presence and
affixed his signature[17] to the "unclaimed baggage/transit list."[18] with the participation of three personnel of the Bureau of Customs
and three agents of the NBI.
PAL loader Edgardo Villafuerte helped carry the golfbags to
the UAL check-in counter. Annabelle Lumba attached a San Leonora Vallado, chief of the NBI Forensic Chemistry
Francisco laser tag (UA Tag No. 594513 and Tag No. 594514) Section, who later conducted a laboratory examination on the
and wrote the name "Gomez" on each side of the golfbags. She white powder, issued a report, dated 23 March 1990, to the effect
then handed to Dumag the boarding pass and UAL plane ticket that the substance was positive "for the presence of HEROIN
for Gomez.[19] Dumag proceeded to Patio Manila, a restaurant at HCL in the amount of 70.6% and 86.1% respectively."[25]
the NAIA, where he turned over to Collector De Leon the travel
Immaculata and Gomez denied having anything to do with
papers of Gomez.[20]
the confiscated drug.
Gomez failed to board the UAL flight. The two golfbags were
A former shuttle bus driver for six years, Immaculata said he
off-loaded from the aircraft. At around four o'clock in the
was hired by David to be a "stay-in driver" with a monthly salary
afternoon, PAL staff Dennis Mendoza brought the golfbags back
of P2,000.00. He would at times be asked to likewise do some
to the check-in counter for a security check-up. The x-ray
special errands for David.[26]
machine showed unidentified dark masses. Alarmed, Mendoza
immediately relayed the information to Capt. Ephraim Sindico of Gomez, on his part, stated that he had met David for the first
the 801st Aviation Security Squadron of the Philippine Air Force time in 1986 on board a plane flight from the Philippines to Los
Security Command ("PAFSECOM") then deployed at the Angeles, U.S.A. Gomez was a bartender at the Horseshoe Hotel
NAIA. Capt. Sindico rushed to the check-in area. He instructed in Las Vegas, while David was a jewelry trader in Texas and Los
his men to get the golfbags pass through the x-ray machine once Angeles. The two got to be on friendly terms after their second
again. Satisfied that something was indeed wrong, Capt. Sindico chance meeting at a wedding anniversary celebration in Los
reported the matter to Col. Claudio Cruz who ordered his men to Angeles. On Mondays thereafter, Gomez would meet David in
have the golfbags go, for the third time, through the x-ray Las Vegas to play golf with Benny Cunanan.[27] Once, Gomez was
machine. The unidentified dark masses having been definitely asked if he would be willing to "bring in" some dollars to the
confirmed, Col. Cruz ordered his men to open the glued bottom Philippines. Gomez showed no interest to accept the deal until
zipper of the golfbags. The golfbags yielded thirty-one single some time in 1990 when he finally agreed. Gomez was to receive
packs,[21] each with an approximate size of 1" x 6" x 4," containing a free round-trip ticket (US-Manila-US) plus $2,500.00. Upon his
a white powder substance suspected to be "heroin" with a total return to the U.S., Gomez would then get another
$2,500.00. During the first week of February, 1990, Cunanan told On 12 March 1990, Yupangco, who claimed to be a
Gomez that he had bought himself a golf set which Gomez could NARCOM agent, arrived in Thailand. He had dinner with
use in the Philippines. A few weeks later, one Andy Bombao Gomez.[33] The following day, Gomez was told by Immaculata to
requested Gomez to also take with him another golf set for pick up the golfbags from Lito Tuazon's apartment. On 14 March
Cunanan. 1990, Gomez picked up the golfbags. He noticed that the
golfbags were heavier than usual. Tuazon explained casually to
Gomez left the U.S. for the Philippines on 26 February
Gomez that there were pieces of jewelry and precious stones
1990. He checked-in the two golfbags and a luggage. He
inside the golfbags. At the Bangkok Airport, Tuazon checked-in
handcarried a small traveler's bag and the US$30,000.00 cash he
the golfbags for Gomez.[34] Immaculata and Yupangco took the
was commissioned to bring with him. At the NAIA, Gomez was
same flight.Gomez was met at the NAIA lobby by David.
met by David and Immaculata. The three proceeded to a house in
Bicutan where David took the golfbags and the dollars.[28] From On 15 March 1990, Charlie Rivera and David took the ticket
Bicutan, Gomez, David and Immaculata went to Nasugbu, and passport of Gomez in order to confirm the latter's flight to the
Batangas, where they stayed for about two or three days. From U.S. The following day, 16 March 1990, Rivera informed Gomez
Nasugbu, they went to Vito Cruz and then back to Bicutan. Here, that he could not take his flight to San Francisco. Gomez
Gomez was handed two (2) plane tickets, a PAL round-trip ticket confronted David about the matter. The latter promised to clear
to Bangkok (Manila-Bangkok-Manila) and a UAL ticket for San up things and invited David to Nasugbu where they stayed until
Francisco, U.S.A.[29] 21 March 1990.[35] Thereafter, Gomez stayed with a certain Jhun
Guevarra at Bicutan. It was there that Gomez called up his
On 27 February 1990, David sent Immaculata to Bangkok to
stepfather and told him about the situation he was in. Gomez's
canvass prices of ready-to-wear clothes. Immaculata stayed at
stepfather convinced him to give himself up to the American
the Asia Hotel for four days. On the fourth day of his stay,
authorities. On 23 March 1990, Gomez, his stepfather and his
Immaculata called David to inform him that he was running out of
half-brother named Frankie, went to the then officer-in-charge of
cash. David instructed Immaculata to wait for him in Bangkok and
Clark Airbase in Angeles City. The latter turned over custody of
to meanwhile stay with Lito Tuazon in the latter's apartment.
Gomez to the Drug Enforcement Agency ("DEA") of the United
David and Gomez left for Thailand on 04 March 1990 bringing States in Manila. The DEA, in turn, surrendered him to the NBI.[36]
with them a golf set each. Immaculata fetched the two at the
Meanwhile, on 22 March 1990, David and Immaculata left for
Bangkok Airport and brought them to the Union Towers Hotel
Hongkong reportedly to get some spare parts for David's
where they stayed for two days. On the third day, David and
Mercedes Benz car.[37] In Hongkong, after buying the car spare
Gomez played golf while Immaculata cleaned and prepared Lito
parts, David and Immaculata went to the U.S. Department of
Tuazon's apartment for David where the latter transferred and
Justice in Hongkong. While waiting for David, Immaculata was
spent the rest of his stay in Bangkok.[30]
confronted by a group of people, who turned out to be from the
David returned to Manila on 09 March 1990.[31] On 10 March Hongkong Immigration office, requesting for his travel
1990, Lito Tuazon had the tickets of Gomez and Immaculata also papers. Immaculata was brought in for investigation because of
confirmed for the return trip to Manila. David, who was by then in an expired visa, then turned over to the police authorities and
Manila, called up Gomez to tell him that Aya Yupangco was finally to the court which decreed his imprisonment.
arriving in Thailand and that the latter should not be allowed to
In the Hongkong prison, Immaculata was visited by NBI
see the golfbags.[32] Gomez became suspicious but David assured
agents for his implication in the "heroin" case. He denied the
Gomez that the golfbags merely contained precious jewels and
accusation. Later, he agreed, without the assistance of counsel,
stones.
to execute a sworn statement at the Stanley Prison. After his the crime itself, the elements of conspiracy must be proven
prison term, Immaculata was deported to Manila. [38] According to beyond reasonable doubt. While conspiracy need not be
the NBI, when Immaculata was apprehended by the Hongkong established by direct evidence, for it may be inferred from the
immigration authorities, he and David were preparing to leave for
conduct of the accused before, during and after the commission
Mexico.[39]
of the crime, all taken together, however, the evidence therefore
The trial court found Gomez and Immaculata guilty beyond must reasonably be strong enough to show a community of
reasonable doubt of the crime charged. While Gomez and criminal design." [46]

Immaculata filed separate notices of appeal to this Court from

their conviction,[40] only Immaculata, however, filed his Conspiracy, to be the basis for a conviction, should be proved in
brief.[41] Gomez, assisted by counsel, filed a "manifestation of the same manner as the criminal act itself. It is also essential that
withdrawal of appeal"[42] to which the Solicitor General interposed a conscious design to commit an offense must be
no objection.[43] The Court would only thus consider the appeal of established. Conspiracy is not the product of negligence but
Immaculata. of intentionality on the part of the cohorts.[47]
In his appeal, Immaculata[44] insists that the trial court has Appellant, it might be true, was an incorporator, along with
erred in including him in the drug conspiracy and in admitting in David, of AD-333, Inc.; however, nothing could be gathered from
evidence his sworn statement taken, without the assistance of the records to show that the corporation was engaged in or used
counsel, by an NBI agent at the Stanley Prison in Hongkong. at one time or another for any unlawful purpose, let alone in the
Unquestionably, heroin, a prohibited drug, was being illegal traffic of drugs. It would, in fact, appear that appellant was
transported when discovered by the authorities at the NAIA. That made to be a signatory of the incorporation papers of AD-333,
the contraband failed to reach its final destination would not Inc., only because David needed to comply with the minimum
preclude the commission of the crime of transporting illegal drugs; number of incorporators required by law for its registration.[48]
the fact of actual conveyance would suffice to support a finding of The trip to Bangkok of appellant and his co-accused might
guilt.[45] perhaps elicit suspicion on the real nature of his association with
The trial court found appellant Immaculata to have been part David, but an assumed intimacy between two persons of itself
of the conspiracy in the illegal traffic of drugs, and it deduced does not give that much significance to the existence of criminal
appellant's conspiratorial participation in the crime from the conspiracy. Conspiracy certainly transcends companionship.[49]
following facts: (1) appellant was not only an employee but a While the sworn statement taken from appellant by an NBI
business partner or associate of David; (2) appellant, Yupangco agent at the Stanley Prison in Hongkong during his incarceration
and Gomez were all on board the same PAL flight No. PR-731 was not made the basis for Immaculata's conviction by the court a
from Bangkok to Manila in which flight the golfbags containing the quo, a word could be said about the manner in which it was
heroin were checked-in, and (3) all three stayed in one apartment procured. It would seem that appellant was merely apprised in
while in Bangkok. general terms of his constitutional rights to counsel and to remain
Conspiracy is deemed to arise - silent. He then was asked if he would be willing to give a
statement. Having answered in the affirmative, the NBI
"x x x `when two or more persons come to an agreement investigating agent asked him whether he needed a
concerning the commission of a felony and decide to commit it.' lawyer.Appellant answered:
Conspiracy is not presumed. Like the physical acts constituting
"S. Sa ngayon po ay hindi na at totoo lang naman ang aking sasabihin. Padilla, (Chairman), Bellosillo, Kapunan, and Hermosisima,
Kung mayroon po kayong tanong na hindi ko masasagot ay sasabihin ko Jr., JJ., concur.
na lang po sa inyo."[50]

After that response, the investigation forthwith proceeded. This

procedure hardly was in compliance with Section 12(1), Article III,
of the Constitution which requires the assistance of counsel to a
[1]
RTC Decision, p. 19. Rollo, p.48.
person under custody even when he waives the right to [2]
Presided by Judge Baltazar Relativo Dizon.
counsel.[51] It is immaterial that the sworn statement was executed [3]
Records, pp. 33-36.
in a foreign land. Appellant, a Filipino citizen, should enjoy these
constitutional rights, like anyone else, even when abroad. [4]
Ibid., p. 55.

Under our laws, the onus probandi in establishing the guilt of

[5]
Ibid., p. 74.
an accused for a criminal offense lies with the prosecution. The [6]
Ibid., p. 230.
burden must be discharged by it on the strength of its own [7]
Immaculata and Artem B. David, along with three others, were also
evidence and not on the weakness of the evidence for the incorporators of AD-333, Inc., a corporation registered with the
defense or the lack of it. Proof beyond reasonable doubt, or Securities and Exchange Commission and organized for the purpose
that quantum of proof sufficient to produce a moral certainty that of setting up tourist resorts.
would convince and satisfy the conscience of those who are to [8]
TSN, January 4, 1991, pp. 6-7.
act in judgment, is indispensable to overcome the constitutional [9]
TSN, January 9, 1991, p. 4.
presumption of innocence.
[10]
Ibid., pp. 6-7.
Here, it is not unlikely for one to suspect that appellant has
had an inkling on the existence of the conspiracy but the essential
[11]
Evidenced by the Philippine Commission on Immigration and Deportation
arrival card No. 4990000 accomplished and signed by him.
connecting link showing a definite community of design between
him and the others just has not been adequately shown. When [12]
Exh. D-1.
the circumstances obtaining in a case are capable of two or more [13]
Exh. C-1.
inferences, one of which is consistent with the presumption of
innocence while the other is compatible with guilt, the
[14]
TSN, August 17, 1990, p. 13.
presumption of innocence must prevail and the court must [15]
TSN, October 10, 1990, pp. 4-13.
acquit.[52] [16]
TSN, August 17, 1990, p. 12.
WHEREFORE, the judgment of the trial court convicting [17]
Exh. Y-1.
appellant Felipe Immaculata of the crime charged is hereby [18]
Exh. Y.
REVERSED and SET ASIDE on the basis of reasonable
doubt. His immediate release from the New Bilibid Prisons is [19]
TSN, August 10, 1990, pp. 10-12.
ordered unless he is detained for any other lawful [20]
TSN, October 10, 1990, p. 18.
cause. Costs de oficio. [21]
Exhs. K-1 to K-18 and L-1 to L-11.
SO ORDERED. [22]
Exh. T.
[23]
TSN, August 6, 1990, pp. 30-36.
[24]
TSN, August 6, 1990, p. 35.
[25]
Exh. A-2.
[26]
TSN, January 4, 1991, pp. 3-5.
[27]
TSN, February 1, 1991, pp. 1-5.
[28]
Ibid., pp. 8-15.
[29]
TSN, February 11, 1991, pp. 10-11.
[30]
TSN, January 4, 1991, pp. 4-8.
[31]
TSN, February 11, 1991, p. 19.
[32]
Ibid., pp. 20-23.
[33]
Ibid., p. 24.
[34]
Ibid., pp. 30-31.
[35]
TSN, February 13, 1991, pp. 11-12.
[36]
TSN, February 13, 1991, pp. 14-17.
[37]
TSN, January 4, 1991, p. 10.
[38]
TSN, January 4, 1991, pp. 10-12.
[39]
TSN, August 23, 1990, p.12.
[40]
Records, pp. 555 & 565.
[41]
Rollo, p. 74.
[42]
Ibid., p. 122.
[43]
Ibid., p. 152.
[44]
Gomez withdrew his own appeal.
[45]
People vs. Lo Ho Wing, 193 SCRA 122.
[46]
Magsuci vs. Sandiganbayan, 240 SCRA 13, 17.
[47]
Ibid., at p.18, cited in Sabiniano vs. Court of Appeals, 249 SCRA 24.
[48]
TSN, January 4, 1991, p.12.
[49]
People vs. Paguntalan, 242 SCRA 753, citing People vs. Padrones, 189
SCRA 496 and People vs. Custodio, 47 SCRA 289.
[50]
Exh. EE.
[51]
People vs. Rodrigueza, 205 SCRA 791.
[52]
People vs. Fider, 223 SCRA 117.