B2022 REPORTS ANNOTATED
People v. Ramos
I. Recit-ready summary
Ramos seeks the reversal of the RTC decisions finding her guilty of the
possession and selling of marijuana. She was arrested after a buy bust and
executed an extrajudicial statement at the police station.
The issue in this case was whether or not her extrajudicial statement was
admissible and whether or not she could be held guilty for selling marijuana.
The court ruled that she could not be convicted of selling marijuana.
The extrajudicial statement was inadmissible as it was done in violation of
her constitutional right to be informed and her right to counsel. She had no
counsel when she executed her statement and only answered “opo” when her
rights were recited to her. The sale could not be proved by circumstantial
evidence.
Thus, she could only held guilty for the possession of marijuana, and
not the selling of the drug.
II. Facts of the case
Appellant Rosalinda Ramos seeks the reversal of the decisions of the
Regional Trial Court, Branch 73, Third Judicial Region at Olongapo City,
finding her guilty beyond reasonable doubt in Criminal Case No. 5990 for
violating Section 8 of the Dangerous Drugs Act of 1972 and in Criminal Case
No. 5991 for violating Section 4 of the same Act.
Two informations were filed. The first stated that she, “without being
lawfully authorized, did then and there wilfully, unlawfully and knowingly
have in his/her/their person, possession and control twenty (20) sticks of
marijuana cigarettes.”
The second stated that she without being lawfully authorized, did then
and there willfully, unlawfully and knowingly engage in selling, delivering,
giving away to another and distributing four (4) sticks of marijuana
cigarettes.
G.R. NO:
ARTICLE; TOPIC OF CASE:
June 4 , 1990
People v. Ramos
Ramos was arrested after a buy bust. The marked money was found in
her possession. At the station, appellant executed a statement confessing to
her crimes which she swore to before Assistant City Fiscal Domingo Cabali,
Jr.
The accused alleges that she was not assisted by counsel when she
signed her extrajudicial confession. She told the Assistant city fiscal that the
content of the confession were not true, and that was forced to sign under
duress. When read her rights, Ramos was asked whether she understood her
rights, to which she replied “opo.”
II. Issue
Whether or not the extrajudicial confession is admissible? NO
III. Ratio/Legal Basis
The extrajudicial confession extracted from the accused on November
29, 1982 is inadmissible in evidence for being violative of the Constitutional
mandate that 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.
Her one word response of “opo” does not show that she indeed
understood the recital of her rights.
Moreover, although the right to counsel is a right that may be waived,
such waiver must be voluntary, knowing and intelligent (People v. Caguioa)
To insure that a waiver is voluntary and intelligent, the Constitution now
requires; that for the right to counsel to be waived, the waiver must be in
writing and in the presence of the counsel of the accused. (Art. III, Section
12(l), Constitution) There is no such written waiver in this case, much less
was any waiver made in the presence of counsel.
The trial court used circumstantial evidence to convict the accused
of the crime of selling illegal drugs. However, circumstantial evidence is
insufficient to prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt.
PONENTE: Guitierrez
DIGEST MAKER: Rocky
 B2022 REPORTS ANNOTATED June 4 , 1990

People v. Ramos People v. Ramos

Although she was in possession of the marked money, it is possible

that she came across the money in the general course of business (she was a
cigarette seller). Moreover, the prosecution was not able to present the
informant-buyer as a witness.

Rule 133, Section 6 of the Rules of Court provides:

Circumstantial evidence is sufficient for conviction if:

(a) There is more than one circumstance;

(b) The facts from which the inference are derived are proven; and

(c) The combination of all the circumstances is such as to produce a

conviction beyond a reasonable doubt.

For not successfully meeting the above requirements, the

enumerated circumstantial evidence cannot be a ground for conviction for the
sale of marijuana.

IV. Disposition

WHEREFORE, the appealed decision in Criminal Case No. 5990 is

AFFIRMED but MODIFIED. The appellant is sentenced to suffer the
penalty of imprisonment ranging from six (6) years and one (1) day to
nine (9) years and to pay a fine of six thousand (P 6,000) pesos. The
appealed decision in Criminal Case No. 5991 is REVERSED and SET
ASIDE and the appellant is acquitted on grounds of reasonable doubt.

V. Notes

G.R. NO: PONENTE: Guitierrez

ARTICLE; TOPIC OF CASE: DIGEST MAKER: Rocky