View full case

ALEJANDRO TECSON v. CA

FACTS:

The case involves petitioner Alejandro Tecson, who was charged with the illegal possession and use of counterfeit US dollar notes. On April 28, 1990, a team of Central Bank operatives conducted a buy-bust operation at a Jollibee restaurant in Manila. Tecson, introduced as "Mang Andy" by a civilian informer, was approached by the operatives. He was subsequently apprehended after showing and handing them ten pieces of counterfeit US $100 dollar notes. During the investigation at the Central Bank, Tecson affixed his initials and signed a receipt and "Pagpapatunay." The Currency Analysis and Redemption Division of the Central Bank later confirmed that the confiscated notes were indeed counterfeit.

During the trial, Tecson denied any liability and claimed that he was framed by the Central Bank operatives, who allegedly planted the counterfeit notes. However, both the trial court and the Court of Appeals found Tecson guilty. Dissatisfied with the decision, Tecson raised issues regarding the sufficiency and admissibility of the evidence presented by the prosecution. His appeal was then brought before the Supreme Court.

ISSUES:

  1. Whether the ten counterfeit US $100 dollar notes confiscated from the petitioner are admissible in evidence.

  2. Whether the petitioner's initial on the counterfeit US dollar notes and his signature on the "Pagpapatunay" are admissible.

  3. Whether possession of fake dollar notes must be coupled with intent to use in order to constitute a crime under Article 168 of the Revised Penal Code.

  4. Whether the guilt of the petitioner for the crime of illegal possession and use of fake US dollar notes was proven beyond reasonable doubt.

  5. Whether the petitioner was instigated or entrapped to commit the crime

  6. Whether the counterfeit US dollar notes confiscated from the petitioner are admissible as evidence

  7. Whether the petitioner's claim of being framed-up by the Central Bank agents should be considered

  8. Whether the petitioner's allegation of torture should be given weight

RULING:

  1. The ten counterfeit US $100 dollar notes confiscated from the petitioner are admissible in evidence.

  2. The petitioner's initial on the counterfeit US dollar notes and his signature on the "Pagpapatunay" are inadmissible.

  3. Possession of fake dollar notes must be coupled with intent to use in order to constitute a crime under Article 168 of the Revised Penal Code.

  4. The guilt of the petitioner for the crime of illegal possession and use of fake US dollar notes was proven beyond reasonable doubt.

  5. The court held that the petitioner cannot claim instigation as he had already shown intention to sell counterfeit US dollar notes prior to the buy-bust operation. The informant only convinced him that the prosecution witnesses were interested buyers. Thus, the court ruled that it was a case of entrapment, which is allowed, not instigation.

  6. The court found that the counterfeit US dollar notes were admissible as evidence because the petitioner was caught in flagrante delicto during the buy-bust operation. The prosecution witness testified that they saw the petitioner draw the fake notes from his wallet, and the arrest was made without relying on any prearranged signal.

  7. The court rejected the petitioner's claim of being framed-up by the Central Bank agents, stating that it is a defense that is easy to concoct and difficult to prove. The court upheld the legal presumption that public officers regularly perform their official duties.

  8. The court dismissed the petitioner's allegation of torture as he failed to provide evidence to support it. The petitioner did not file any criminal or administrative action against his alleged tormentors. The court also noted that the petitioner's conviction was not based on evidence obtained during his custodial investigation without the assistance of counsel.

PRINCIPLES:

  • The elements of the crime charged for violation of Article 168 of the Revised Penal Code require that the offender knowingly uses or possesses with intent to use a forged or falsified instrument. Possession must be coupled with the act of using or at least with intent to use the same.

  • The absence of haggling as to the price of the counterfeit US dollar notes does not negate the fact of the buy-bust operation.

  • The testimony of a single prosecution witness, as long as it is positive and clear and not arising from an improper motive, deserves full credit.

  • Mere possession of counterfeit US dollar notes coupled with intent to use them is sufficient to constitute the crime under Article 168 of the Revised Penal Code.

  • Entrapment is allowed, while instigation is not.

  • Evidence obtained during a warrantless arrest and seizure of evidence caught in flagrante delicto is admissible.

  • The defense of being framed-up is viewed with disdain by the courts and there is a legal presumption that public officers regularly perform their official duties.

  • Allegations of torture should be supported by evidence and the failure to file any criminal or administrative action weakens the claim.