G.R. No. 128822 - People vs. Pasudag y Bokang

On December 17, 1996, the Provincial Prosecutor filed an Information in Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Pangasinan, Branch 46, charging Alberto Pasudag y Bokang with violation of R.A. No. 6425, Sec. 9, for willfully and unlawfully planting and cultivating seven (7) hills of marijuana in Barangay Artacho, Sison, Pangasinan.
On February 10, 1997, the RTC arraigned the accused, who pleaded not guilty, and commenced trial.

On September 26, 1995, SPO2 Pepito Calip, during anti-jueteng operations in Brgy. Artacho, discovered a 70-square-meter garden with marijuana plants interspersed among corn and camote. A nearby storekeeper identified the property owner as Alberto Pasudag.
At about 2:30 PM, a police team led by Chief of Police Romeo Astrero, with SPO3 Fajarito, SPO3 Alcantara, and PO3 Rasca, proceeded to Pasudag’s residence, inspected the backyard, photographed the accused beside the plants, uprooted seven (7) marijuana plants, and brought both the plants and Pasudag to the police station.
At the station, Pasudag admitted ownership of the seized plants. SPO3 Fajarito prepared a confiscation report, which Pasudag signed. Six plants were stored in the Chief’s cabinet; the tallest plant was submitted to the PNP Crime Laboratory.
On October 11, 1995, Forensic Chemist Major Theresa Ann Bugayong Cid received leaf specimens from the tallest plant and, under Chemistry Report No. D-087-95, confirmed the presence of tetrahydrocannabinol (marijuana).

On March 18, 1997, the RTC convicted Pasudag of illegal cultivation of marijuana, sentenced him to reclusion perpetua and a P500,000 fine (minimum penalty), and ordered the confiscation of the seven plants.
Pasudag appealed, contending (a) the specimen tested was not properly identified as one of the seized plants; (b) the confiscation report was an extrajudicial admission requiring counsel; and (c) his conviction rested on impermissible inferences.

Whether the warrantless search and seizure of the marijuana plants violated the constitutional protection against unreasonable searches and seizures, rendering the seized plants inadmissible.
Whether the signing of the confiscation report constituted an extrajudicial admission made without counsel during custodial investigation, thus inadmissible.
Whether the trial court erred in convicting the accused based on inferences of ownership and cultivation rather than direct proof.