HO WAI PANG v. PEOPLE
They plead guilty, and invoked
Topic: Rights of Suspects
FACTS:
13 Hongkong nationals came to the Philippines via UAE Flight which arrived
at NAIA. The group leader, Sonny Wong, presented a Baggage Declaration
Form to Customs Examiner Cinco. In the first bag, she saw few personal
belongings such as used clothing, shoes and chocolate boxes which she
pressed. In the second bag, Cinco noticed chocolate boxes which were
almost of the same size as those in the first bag. Becoming suspicious, she
took out 4 of the chocolate boxes and opened one of them. She saw a white
crystalline substance inside contained in a white transparent plastic. She
called the attention of her immediate superiors Duty Collector Alalo and
Customs Appraiser Sancho, who advised her to call the Narcotics
Command (NARCOM) and the police. She guided the tourists to the
Intensive Counting Unit (ICU) while bringing with her the 4 boxes earlier
discovered.
At the ICU, Cinco checked Pang's bag and only found personal effects, but
recalled that 2 of the chocolate boes discovered earlier at the express lane
belonged to him. Cinco called the other tourists and examined their bags
and found a total of 18 chocolate boxes.
NARCOM Agent de Castro corroborated the testimony of Cinco. He
conducted a test on the white crystalline substance using the Mandelline
Re-Agent Test. The substance was found positive for methamphetamine
hydrochloride (shabu). The chocolate boxes were bundled together with
tape, placed inside a plastic bag and brought to the Inbond Section.
The 13 tourists were brought to NBI for further questioning. The confiscated
substance were turned over to the Forensic Chemist who weighed and
examined them, and found them positive as shabu. Out of the 13 tourists,
the NBI found evidence for violation of RA 6425 only against petitioner
Pang and his 5 co-accused.
Six separate informations were filed. Petitioner Pang filed a Motion for
Reinvestigation, which was granted by the trial court. The reinvestigation
gave way to a finding of conspiracy among the accused and this resulted to
the filing of a single Amended Information.
denial as their defense. They claimed to have no knowledge about the
transportation of illegal substance taken from their traveling bags which
provided by the travel agency.
RTC found them guilty. All the accused appealed to the SC, but later on, all
accused except for petitioner Pang withdrew their appeal. SC granted the
withdrawal. Petitioner Pang's appeal was referred to the CA for proper
disposition and determination.
CA denied the appeal, and affirmed the RTC decision. While conceding that
petitioner’s constitutional right to counsel during the custodial
investigation was indeed violated, it nevertheless went on to hold that
there were other evidence sufficient to warrant his conviction. The CA also
rebuked petitioner’s claim that he was deprived of his constitutional and
statutory right to confront the witnesses against him. The CA gave
credence to the testimonies of the prosecution witnesses and quoted with
favor the trial court’s ratiocination regarding the existence of conspiracy
among the accused.
ISSUE:
Whether he was duly informed of his (constitutional) right to remain silent
and to have competent counsel during custodial investigation, in
accordance with Section 12, Article 3 of the Constitution.
HELD: YES.
Constitutional right was violated, but substance discovered during
inspection at NAIA still admissible as evidence.
Section 12, Article 3:
Section 12. (1) 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 preferably of his own choice.
If the person cannot afford the services of counsel, he must be provided
with one. These rights cannot be waived except in writing and in the
presence of counsel.

Petitioner Pang was subjected to all the rituals of a custodial questioning by

the custom authorities and the NBI in violation of his constitutional right.
However, the Constitution only prohibits as evidence confession and
admissions of the accused as against himself.

"Infractions of the so-called Miranda rights render inadmissible ‘only the

extrajudicial confession or admission made during custodial investigation.’
The admissibility of other evidence, provided they are relevant to the issue
and are not otherwise excluded by law or rules, are not affected even if
obtained or taken in the course of custodial investigation.” - Aquino vs
Paiste

Petitioner Pang did not make any confession or admission during his
custodial investigation. The prosecution did not present any extrajudicial
confession extracted from his as evidence of his guilt. No statement was
taken from him during his detention and subsequently used in evidence
against him. The determination of his guilt was based on the testimonies of
the prosecution witnesses and on the existence of the confiscated shabu.

“Any allegation of violation of rights during custodial investigation is

relevant and material only to cases in which an extrajudicial admission or
confession extracted from the accused becomes the basis of their
conviction.” - People vs. Buluran

Petitioner's conviction was on the strength of his having been caught in

flagrante delicto transporting shabu into the country and not on the basis
of any confession or admission. Cinco's testimony was found to be direct,
positive and credible by the trial court; it need not be corroborated. She
witnesses the entire incident and provided direct evidence as eyewitness to
the very act of the commission of the crime.