Title
People vs. Jumarang y Mulingbayan
Case
G.R. No. 250306
Decision Date
Aug 10, 2022
Accused acquitted after Supreme Court ruled warrantless arrest and search unlawful, deeming seized marijuana inadmissible as evidence.

Case Digest (G.R. No. 250306)
Expanded Legal Reasoning Model

Facts:

  • Information and Arraignment
    • On April 11, 2010 at about 11:15 a.m., an Information was filed against Ronilo Jumarang y Mulingbayan for planting, cultivating or culturing three pots of fully grown marijuana plants on the roof of his house in Barangay Santiago, Bato, Camarines Sur, in violation of Section 16, Article II of R.A. No. 9165.
    • Jumarang was arraigned, pleaded not guilty, and the case proceeded to trial.
  • Police Surveillance, Arrest and Seizure
    • Police Officer 2 Manuel Tanay and PO2 Jeric Buena received a tip from a confidential informant regarding marijuana plants at the “De Lima residence.” They conducted surveillance from about ten meters away and saw Jumarang descending the roof with a pot containing a plant they presumed to be marijuana.
    • The officers called to Jumarang, who complied, asserting it was a medicinal plant. He was instructed to put the plant down and was then brought to the police station along with the two other pots found on the roof. A barangay official, media representative, and prosecutor witnessed the inventory. The plants were photographed, inventoried, and submitted for laboratory examination.
  • Trial, Conviction and Appeal
    • At trial, forensic examination by Police Senior Inspector Wilfredo I. Pabustan, Jr. confirmed the plants were marijuana. Jumarang denied guilt, claiming he was merely visiting and intended to report the plants to police.
    • The Regional Trial Court convicted Jumarang of violation of Section 16, Article II of R.A. No. 9165, sentenced him to reclusion perpetua and imposed a ₱500,000 fine.
    • The Court of Appeals affirmed with modification, imposing life imprisonment instead of reclusion perpetua, and maintained the fine. Jumarang appealed to the Supreme Court.

Issues:

  • Whether the seized marijuana plants are admissible in evidence to prove guilt for violation of Section 16, Article II of R.A. No. 9165.
  • Whether the prosecution proved the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt for the charged offense.

Ruling:

  • (Subscriber-Only)

Ratio:

  • (Subscriber-Only)

Doctrine:

  • (Subscriber-Only)

Analyze Cases Smarter, Faster
Jur is a legal research platform serving the Philippines with case digests and jurisprudence resources.