HO WAI PANG V PEOPLE 


GR No. 176229

October 19, 2011


Topic: CONFESSION-Custodial Investigation 




_____________________________________________________________________________________




FACTS: 



13 Hongkong Nationals arrived at NAIA as tourists. At the arrival area, the group leader
Sonny Wong presented baggage declaration form to Gilda Cinco (Customs Examiner). Cinco
examined the baggages of all 13. However, while the second bag was examined, she noticed
chocolate boxes which are of the same size as the ones found on the first baggage.
Suspicious,she took out 4 and opened one of them. What she saw inside was a white
crystalline substance contained in a white transparent plastic. Cinco then called attention to
Duty Collector and Customs Appraiser who advised her to call the NARCOM. 



The tourists were placed in intensive Counting Unit (ICU). The result of such substance
yielded was positive for shabu. 



The 13 tourists were brought to the Nationa Bureau of Investigation (NBI) for further
questioning. The confiscated stuff were turned over to the Forensic Chemist. Findings show
that the representative samples were positive for shabu. Out of the 13 tourists, the NBI found
evidence for violation of RA No. 6425 only as against the petitioner and his five co-accused. 



Six separate information 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. They
pleaded guilty, and invoked denial as their defense. They claimed to have no knowledge of the
transportation of the illegal substance taken from their travelling bags which were provided by
the travel agency. 



The RTC found them guilty. All of the accused appealed to the SC, but later on, all
accused except for the petitioner Pang widthrew their appeal. The SC granted the widthrawal.
The petitioner’s appeal was referred to the CA. 



The CA denied the appeal and affirmed the decision of the RTC. While conceeding that
the petitoner’s constitutional right to counsel during the custodial investigation was indeed
violated, it nevertheless went to hold that there were other evidence sufficient to warrant his
conviction. 



Petitioner’s Contention: 



He was not assisted by a competent and independent lawyer during the custodial
investigation. He claimed that he was not duly informed of rights to remain silent and to have a
competent counsel of his choice.





ISSUE: 



WON the RTC erred in finding the accused guilty. 



HELD: 



No. 



a. Infractions of the so-called Miranda Rights of the accused during the custodial
investigation render only extrajudicial confession or admissions of the suspect inadmissible as
evidence. The admissibiity of other relevant evidence are not affected even if obtained or taken
in the course of custodial investigaton. 



b. The determination of guilt of the accused in this case was based on the testimonies
of the presecution witness and on the existence of confiscated shabu. Allegation of violation of
Miranda Rights is material only in cases which the extrajudicial admission or confession
extracted from becomes the sole basis of the conviction.