Case Digest (G.R. No. 129296)
Facts:
People of the Philippines v. Abe Valdez y Dela Cruz, G.R. No. 129296, September 25, 2000, the Supreme Court En Banc, Quisumbing, J., writing for the Court. The decision reviews on automatic review a February 18, 1997 decision of the Regional Trial Court of Bayombong, Nueva Vizcaya, Branch 27, in Criminal Case No. 3105, which found appellant Abe Valdez y Dela Cruz guilty of violating Section 9 of the Dangerous Drugs Act of 1972 (R.A. No. 6425), as amended by R.A. No. 7659, and sentenced him to death by lethal injection.An Information dated September 26, 1996 charged appellant with planting, cultivating and growing seven fully grown marijuana plants weighing 2.194 kilos at Sitio Bulan, Barangay Sawmill, Villaverde, Nueva Vizcaya. Appellant pleaded not guilty at his November 15, 1996 arraignment and trial followed. Police testimony established that SPO3 Marcelo Tipay received an informer’s tip (around September 24, 1996) locating a marijuana plantation allegedly owned by appellant; Inspector Alejandro Parungao formed a reaction team which, accompanied by the informer, trekked to the site early the next morning and found seven flowering marijuana plants about 25 meters from appellant’s nipa hut. PO2 Balut testified appellant admitted ownership when asked, the plants were uprooted and one specimen (1.090 grams in the record) was sent to the PNP Crime Laboratory, whose analyst positively identified it as marijuana. The prosecution also introduced Department of Environment and Natural Resources certifications showing the land was Lot 3224 Timberland Block B (public domain) and that appellant was an occupant without a Certificate of Stewardship.
Appellant testified as sole defense witness that he was brought by an unknown person to the site where five armed policemen were present and that, under intimidation, he admitted ownership; he said the plants lay between his house and that of a neighbor with whom a barangay peace officer (Kiko Pascua) bore a grudge. The prosecution’s rebuttal witness, SPO3 Tipay, produced a sketch situating the plants relative to appellant’s huts and the nearest neighbor; he admitted he had no surveyor and that his measurements were informal. The trial court found appellant’s defense unpersuasive and convicted him.
Appellant appealed to the Supreme Court via automatic review. He assigned errors alleging (1) illegal search and seizure and admission of the plants as evidence; (2) conviction des...(Pro-only)
Issues:
- Was the search and seizure of the marijuana plants lawful?
- Were the seized plants admissible in evidence against appellant?
- Did the prosecution prove appellant’s guilt beyond reasonable doubt without the seized plants and the alleged confession?
- Was the imposition of the death penalty proper give...(Pro-only)
Ruling:
- (Pro-only)
Ratio:
- (Pro-only)
Doctrine:
- (Pro-only)