Title
People vs. Valdez
Case
G.R. No. 129296
Decision Date
Sep 25, 2000
Abe Valdez was acquitted of marijuana cultivation after the Supreme Court ruled the search and seizure unlawful, rendering evidence inadmissible and insufficient to prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt.

Case Summary (G.R. No. 129296)

Procedural Posture

Abe Valdez was charged by information on September 26, 1996 with planting and cultivating seven fully grown marijuana plants weighing 2.194 kg. He pleaded not guilty at arraignment on November 15, 1996. The Regional Trial Court of Bayombong, Branch 27, found him guilty and sentenced him to death by lethal injection on February 18, 1997. The Supreme Court granted automatic review.

Facts: Discovery and Arrest

Acting on a tip, a police team led by Inspector Alejandro R. Parungao trekked to Valdez’s kaingin at Sitio Bulan on September 25, 1996. They found seven five-foot tall flowering marijuana plants approximately 25 meters from Valdez’s nipa hut. Valdez allegedly admitted ownership when questioned and was photographed beside the plants. The plants were uprooted and Valdez was arrested.

Laboratory and Land Certification

One uprooted plant (1.090 kg) was submitted to the PNP Crime Laboratory, where forensic analyst Prevy Fabros Luwis confirmed through microscopic and chemical examinations that it was marijuana. A DENR certification established that the land (Lot 3224 Timberland Block B) formed part of the public domain under Integrated Social Forestry; Valdez was an acknowledged occupant without a stewardship certificate.

Defense Testimony

Valdez testified that he was lured by an unidentified person to a site 100 meters from his hut, where police forced him to admit ownership under threat. He claimed he merely weeded his vegetable farm and denied planting the plants. He alleged coercion by a barangay peace officer with a personal grudge and said he was made to pose for photographs and uproot five plants.

Prosecution Rebuttal

SPO3 Marcelo Tipay, rebuttal witness, presented a sketch showing the marijuana plot 40 meters from Valdez’s old hut and 250 meters from a neighbor’s. He conceded he made measurements without a surveyor and based ownership inference on informant information and proximity.

Trial Court Decision

The trial court held the search valid under the “plain view” doctrine and admitted the uprooted plants and Valdez’s admission. It found guilt beyond reasonable doubt and imposed the death penalty by lethal injection, with costs against Valdez.

Issues on Appeal

  1. Lawfulness of the warrantless search and seizure
  2. Admissibility of the seized marijuana plants
  3. Sufficiency of evidence to prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt
  4. Validity of Valdez’s admission and imposition of the death penalty

Search and Seizure Analysis

Under the 1987 Constitution, searches require judicial warrant upon probable cause unless specific exceptions apply. The police had ample time to secure a warrant, yet conducted a pre-arranged operation to uproot plants. The “plain view” exception fails because officers actively searched for the plants and they were not immediately apparent without a further search. The absence of fencing does not negate protection against unreasonable searches.

Exclusion of Seized Plants

The uprooted plants are “fruits of the poisonous tree” under Article III, Sections 2 and 3(2) of the Constitution. Their seizure without warrant or valid exception renders them inadmissib

...continue reading

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