Title
People vs. Pasudag y Bokang
Case
G.R. No. 128822
Decision Date
May 4, 2001
A man was acquitted of illegal marijuana cultivation after the Supreme Court ruled the warrantless search unconstitutional, deeming evidence inadmissible due to lack of counsel and violation of rights.
illegal cultivation of marijuana
search and seizure
warrant
A

Case Summary (G.R. No. 128822)

Key Dates and Statutory Provision

Charged conduct: Alleged illegal planting, cultivation and culture of seven marijuana plants.
Information filed: December 17, 1996.
Incident date alleged: September 26, 1995.
Statute: R.A. No. 6425 (Dangerous Drugs Act), Section 9.
Trial court judgment: March 18, 1997 (conviction).
Appellate decision: May 4, 2001 (Supreme Court reversal and acquittal).

Procedural History

An Information under R.A. No. 6425, Sec. 9 was filed in the RTC. The accused pleaded not guilty and trial proceeded. The RTC convicted the accused of illegal cultivation of marijuana and sentenced him to reclusion perpetua and a fine of P500,000, with confiscation of the seven plants. The accused appealed to the Supreme Court, which reviewed the case and its constitutional implications.

Facts as Found at Trial

On September 26, 1995, SPO2 Calip, while conducting anti-jueteng operations in Barangay Artacho, observed a backyard garden approximately five meters from where he was. He recognized marijuana plants among other crops and inquired about the house owner, being told it belonged to accused. He reported to the Chief of Police, who dispatched a team that went to the accused’s house. The team was taken to the backyard garden; photographs were taken of the accused beside a marijuana plant; seven marijuana plants were uprooted; the accused and the plants were brought to the police station. At the station, the accused allegedly admitted ownership of the plants in the presence of Chief Astrero. A confiscation report was prepared and signed by the accused. Six plants were kept in the Chief’s office; the tallest plant (Exh. B) was sent to the PNP Crime Laboratory, where forensic analysis of leaves showed the presence of tetrahydrocannabinol (THC), positive for marijuana.

Trial Court Ruling

The RTC found the accused guilty beyond reasonable doubt and imposed reclusion perpetua and a P500,000 fine, taking into account the accused’s low educational attainment and imposing the minimum penalty within the applicable range. The court ordered confiscation of the seven fully grown marijuana plants and committed the accused to the National Bilibid Prison.

Issues Raised on Appeal

The principal issues on appeal were: (1) whether the plant submitted for laboratory examination was one of the seven plants confiscated from the accused’s garden; (2) whether the confiscation report signed by the accused constituted an admissible extrajudicial admission in the absence of counsel; and (3) whether conviction could validly rest upon inferences that the accused planted, owned, or permitted cultivation of the plants given the evidentiary record.

Prosecution’s Contentions on Appeal

The Solicitor General argued that the accused admitted in open court that the specimen examined (Exh. B) was one of the plants confiscated from his backyard; that the accused signed the confiscation report while not under custodial interrogation and therefore without the need for counsel; and that reasonable inferences drawn by the trial court supported conviction.

Supreme Court’s Analysis — Search and Seizure

The Court examined the law on searches and seizures under the 1987 Constitution, emphasizing that the right to be secure against unreasonable searches and seizures is inviolable and that evidence obtained in violation of this protection is inadmissible. The Court found that the police conducted a warrantless search and seizure of the accused’s backyard garden without showing urgency or necessity that would justify a warrantless action. The Court noted that the officers had knowledge of the accused’s ownership of the house, that the plants were several months old (three months), and that there was ample time to obtain a search warrant. The absence of a warrant and lack of circumstances justifying a warrantless seizure rendered the seizure illegal and the seized plants inadmissible.

Supreme Court’s Analysis — Custodial Interrogation and Admission

The Court assessed whether the accused was under custodial interrogation when questioned at the scene and at the police station and when he signed the confiscation report. Citing established doctrine, the Court held that custodial investigation begins when a person is taken into custody, singled out as a suspect, and questioned in a manner likely to elicit an admission. Testimony showed that the accused was asked who planted the plants, that he was interrogated in the presence of police officers including the Chief of Police, and that he was not informed of his constitutional rights prior to questioning nor was counsel present when he signed the confiscation report. The Court rejected the Solicitor General’s contention that no custodial interrogation occurred at the time of signing. The Court held that any admission obtained without informing the accused of his rights and without the assistance of counsel, absent a valid waiver, is inadmissible.

Evidentiary Consequence and

...continue reading

Analyze Cases Smarter, Faster
Jur helps you analyze cases smarter to comprehend faster, building context before diving into full texts. AI-powered analysis, always verify critical details.

About Privacy Terms