People vs.

Asis [GR 142531, 15 October 2002]

Facts:
Danilo Asis y Fonperada and Gilbert Formento y Saricon were charged in
an Information dated 18February 1998; the information stating "That on or
about February 10, 1998, in the City of Manila,Philippines, the said
accused, conspiring and confederating together and mutually helping each
other, did thenand there wilfully, unlawfully and feloniously, with intent to
gain and by means of force and violence uponperson, to wit: by then and
there stabbing one YU HING GUAN @ ROY CHING with a bladed
instrument onthe different parts of the body thereafter take, rob and carry
away the following, to wit: Cash money in theamount of P20,000.00; one
(1) wristwatch' one (1) gold necklace; and undetermined items; or all in the
totalamount of P20,000.00 more or less, belonging to said YU HING
GUAN @ ROY CHING against his will, tothe damage and prejudice of the
said owner in the aforesaid amount more or less of P20,000.00,
PhilippineCurrency, and as a result thereof, he sustained mortal stab
wounds which were the direct and immediate causeof his death." When
arraigned on 9 July 1998, both accused pleaded not guilty. Found to be
deaf-mutes, theywere assisted, not only by a counsel de oficio, but also by
an interpreter from the Calvary Baptist Church. Theprosecution presented
9 witnesses. Although none of them had actually seen the crime
committed, strong andsubstantial circumstantial evidence presented by
them attempted to link both accused to the crime. After duetrial, both
accused were found guilty and sentenced to death. The Regional Trial
Court (RTC) of Manila(Branch 54; Criminal Case 98-163090), on 8 March
2000, held that the "crime charged and proved is robberywith homicide
under Article 294, No. 1 of the Revised Penal Code," ruled that "although
no witnesses to theactual killing and robbery were presented, the
circumstantial evidence including the recovery of bloodstainedclothing
from both accused definitely proved that the two (2) x x x committed the
crime," and appreciated theaggravating circumstances of abuse of
confidence, superior strength and treachery and thus sentenced
bothaccused to the supreme penalty of death. Hence, the automatic
review before the Supreme Court. Both theaccused do not question the
legality of their arrest, as they made no objection thereto before the
arraignment,but object to the introduction of the bloodstained pair of shorts
allegedly recovered from the bag of Formento;arguing that the search was
illegally done, making the obtainment of the pair of shorts illegal and taints
themas inadmissible. The prosecution, on the other hand, contends that it
was Formento's wife who voluntarilysurrendered the bag that contained
the bloodstained trousers of the victim, and thus claims that her
actconstituted a valid consent to the search without a warrant.
Issue:
Whether Formento, a deaf-mute, has given consent to the recovery of the
bloodstained pair of short, inhis possession during the warrantless search.
Held:
Primarily, the constitutional right against unreasonable searches and
seizures, being a personal one,cannot be waived by anyone except the
person whose rights are invaded or who is expressly authorized to do
Constitutional Law II, 2005 ( 43 )

Narratives (Berne Guerrero)

so on his or her behalf. In the present case, the testimonies of the
prosecution witnesses show that at the timethe bloodstained pair of shorts
was recovered, Formento, together with his wife and mother, was
present.Being the very subject of the search, necessarily, he himself
should have given consent. Since he wasphysically present, the waiver
could not have come from any other person. Lopez vs. Commissioner
ofCustoms does not apply as the accused therein was not present when
the search was made. Further, toconstitute a valid waiver, it must be
shown that first, the right exists; second, the person involved
hadknowledge, actual or constructive, of the existence of such a right; and
third, the person had an actualintention to relinquish the right. Herein,
Formento could not have consented to a warrantless search when, inthe
first place, he did not understand what was happening at that moment.
There was no interpreter to assisthim -- a deaf-mute -- during the arrest,
search and seizure. The point in the case Pasion vda. de Garcia v.Locsin,
i.e. "as the constitutional guaranty is not dependent upon any affirmative
act of the citizen, the courtsdo not place the citizen in the position of either
contesting an officers authority by force, or waiving hisconstitutional
rights; but instead they hold that a peaceful submission to a search or
seizure is not a consent oran invitation thereto, but is merely a
demonstration of regard for the supremacy of the law," becomes
evenmore pronounced in the present case, in which Formento is a deaf-
mute, and there was no interpreter toexplain to him what was happening.
His seeming acquiescence to the search without a warrant may
beattributed to plain and simple confusion and ignorance. The
bloodstained pair of shorts was a piece ofevidence seized on the occasion
of an unlawful search and seizure. Thus, it is tainted and should thus
beexcluded for being the proverbial fruit of the poisonous tree. In the
language of the fundamental law, it shallbe inadmissible in evidence for
any purpose in any proceeding. Lastly, as to evidence vis-a-is the case in
itstotality, circumstantial evidence that merely arouses suspicions or gives
room for conjecture is not sufficientto convict. It must do more than just
raise the possibility, or even the probability, of guilt. It must engendermoral
certainty. Otherwise, the constitutional presumption of innocence prevails,
and the accused deservesacquittal.