Title
People vs. Molina y Manamat
Case
G.R. No. 133917
Decision Date
Feb 19, 2001
Accused-appellants acquitted as marijuana evidence deemed inadmissible due to illegal search, violating constitutional rights against unreasonable seizure.

Case Digest (G.R. No. 158328)
Expanded Legal Reasoning Model

Facts:

  • Arrest and Seizure Events
    • In June 1996, SPO1 Marino S. Paguidopon, Jr., received information from an informer about an alleged marijuana pusher in Davao City. During the first week of July, the informer identified Gregorio Mula y Malagura (“Boboy”) as the pusher while riding a motorcycle; Paguidopon had no prior knowledge or personal acquaintance with Nasario Molina y Manamat (“Bobong”).
    • On August 8, 1996, at about 9:30 AM, a police team led by SPO4 Cloribel and assisted by SPO2 Paguidopon and SPO1 Leonardo Pamplona, Jr., was stationed at Paguidopon’s residence. They spotted the accused-appellants riding a trisikad, accosted them, and, upon Pamplona’s demand, opened a black bag held by Molina, revealing 946.9 grams of dried marijuana. Both were then handcuffed and taken into custody.
  • Procedural History
    • August 10, 1996: The provincial fiscal filed an information for violation of Section 8 of R.A. 6425, as amended by R.A. 7659, alleging possession of 946.9 grams of marijuana. The accused-appellants pleaded not guilty on September 4, 1996.
    • During trial, the defense filed a demurrer to evidence asserting violation of the right against unreasonable searches and seizures; the trial court denied it, convicted the appellants, and sentenced them to death by lethal injection on April 25, 1997. The case was elevated to the Supreme Court for automatic review.

Issues:

  • Whether the warrantless arrest and subsequent search and seizure violated the accused-appellants’ constitutional right against unreasonable searches and seizures.
  • Assuming admissibility of the marijuana seized, whether the prosecution proved guilt beyond reasonable doubt.
  • Assuming guilt, whether the death penalty is the proper penalty in the absence of aggravating circumstances.

Ruling:

  • (Subscriber-Only)

Ratio:

  • (Subscriber-Only)

Doctrine:

  • (Subscriber-Only)

Analyze Cases Smarter, Faster
Jur helps you analyze cases smarter to comprehend faster—building context before diving into full texts.