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 Summary (G.R. No. 133917)

Facts Leading to Arrest

In June 1996, SPO1 Paguidopon received information regarding a marijuana pusher in Davao City. In early July, while on surveillance with an informer, Paguidopon briefly observed Gregorio Mula riding a motorcycle. He did not see Nasario Molina at that time, nor did he know the accuseds’ names or addresses until after their arrest.

Arrest and Seizure

On the morning of August 8, 1996, Paguidopon learned the pusher would pass through NHA, Ma-a. He assembled a PNP team at his residence. At around 9:30 AM, a trisikad carrying Molina and Mula passed by. Paguidopon pointed them out; the team overtook the vehicle, ordered it to stop, and, upon a request to open a black bag, discovered 946.9 grams of dried marijuana. The accuseds were then handcuffed.

Trial Court Proceedings

Arraigned on September 4, 1996, the accused-appellants pleaded not guilty. They filed a Demurrer to Evidence arguing the marijuana was seized in violation of their constitutional rights; the trial court denied the demurrer and a subsequent motion for reconsideration. Opting not to present evidence, they filed a joint memorandum. On April 25, 1997, the RTC convicted them of violating Section 8 of RA 6425 as amended, sentencing them to death by lethal injection. The court ordered automatic elevation of the case to the Supreme Court.

Issues on Appeal

I. Whether the marijuana is inadmissible because it was obtained through an unreasonable search and seizure
II. Whether, assuming admissibility, the evidence fails to prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt
III. Whether the death penalty is improper absent aggravating circumstances

Constitutional Basis for Search and Seizure

Article III, Section 2 of the 1987 Constitution guarantees the inviolability of persons, houses, papers, and effects against unreasonable searches and seizures, requiring warrants based on probable cause. Section 3(2) provides that evidence obtained in violation of these rights is inadmissible.

Exclusionary Rule and Recognized Exceptions

The exclusionary rule bars unlawfully obtained evidence. Exceptions include:

  1. Search incident to lawful arrest
  2. Search of a moving vehicle
  3. Search under customs law
  4. Seizure in plain view
  5. Voluntary waiver of rights
  6. Stop-and-frisk (Terry) searches

In Flagrante Delicto Standard

A warrantless in flagrante delicto arrest must satisfy two requisites:

  1. Personal knowledge by the arresting officer of an overt act that the person has committed, is committing, or is attempting a crime
  2. The overt act must occur in the officer’s presence or view

Probable cause for such an arrest demands reasonable grounds supported by articulable facts, not merely uncorroborated information.

Application to the Case

The Court found no overt act by Molina or Mula indicating criminal conduct. Holding a bag on a trisikad, without more, did n

...continue reading

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