PEOPLE VS PASUDAG

GR No. 128822, May 4, 2001

FACTS: SPO2 Pepito Calip urinated at a bushy
bamboo fence behind the public school. About
five (5) meters away he saw a !arden of about "#
s$uare meters. %here were mari&uana plants in
between corn plants and camote tops. 'e in$uired
from a store(eeper nearby as to who owned the
house with the !arden. %he store owner told him
that Pasuda! owned it. A team was dispatched and
the team arrived and went strai!ht to the house of
accused Pasuda!. %he police loo(ed for accused
Pasuda! and as(ed him to brin! the team to his
bac(yard !arden which was about five (5) meters
away. )pon seein! the mari&uana plants the
policemen called for a photo!rapher who too(
pictures of accused Pasuda! standin! beside one
of the mari&uana plants. %hey uprooted seven (")
mari&uana plants. %he team brou!ht accused
Pasuda! and the mari&uana plants to the police
station. At the police station accused Pasuda!
admitted in the presence of Chief of Police
Astrero that he owned the mari&uana plants.
SPO* +a&arito prepared a confiscation report
which accused Pasuda! si!ned.
ISSUE: ,O- the arrest and sei.ure valid/
HELD: As a !eneral rule the procurement of a
search warrant is re$uired before a law enforcer
may validly search or sei.e the person house
papers or effects of any individual. 0n the case at
bar the police authorities had ample opportunity
to secure from the court a search warrant. SPO2
Pepito Calip in$uired as to who owned the house.
'e was ac$uainted with mari&uana plants and
immediately reco!ni.ed that some plants in the
bac(yard of the house were mari&uana plants.
%ime was not of the essence to uproot and
confiscate the plants. %hey were three months old
and there was no sufficient reason to believe that
they would be uprooted on that same day. ,ith
the ille!al sei.ure of the mari&uana plants sub&ect
of this case the sei.ed plants are inadmissible in
evidence a!ainst accused1appellant.
%he arrest of accused1appellant was
tainted with constitutional infirmity. %he
testimony of SPO* 2ovencio +a&arito reveals that
appellant was not duly informed of his
constitutional ri!hts. 0t has been held repeatedly
that custodial investi!ation commences when a
person is ta(en into custody and is sin!led out as
a suspect in the commission of a crime under
investi!ation and the police officers be!in to as(
$uestions on the suspect3s participation therein
and which tend to elicit an admission. Obviously
accused1appellant was a suspect from the moment
the police team went to his house and ordered the
uprootin! of the mari&uana plants in his bac(yard
!arden.
PEOPLE VS ZUELA
2 SCRA !8", #2000$
FACTS4%he case is an appeal of accused 5a6imo
7elarde y de los 8eyes -elson 9arcia y
%emporas and %ito :uela y 5orandarte from the
decision of the 8%C Camarines Sur ;ibmanan
<r. 2= findin! them !uilty beyond reasonable
doubt of robbery with homicide.
ISSUE: ,O- the e6tra1&udicial confessions were
e6ecuted in accordance with the provisions of the
>?"* Constitution/
HELD: %he ri!ht to counsel attaches the moment
an investi!atin! officer starts to as( $uestions to
elicit information on the crime from the suspected
offender.. 0n other words @the moment there is a
move or even ur!e of said investi!ators to elicit
admissions or confessions or even plain
information which may appear innocent or
innocuous at the time from said suspect he
should then and there be assisted by counsel
unless he waives the ri!ht but the waiver shall be
made in writin! and in the presence of counsel.
%here was no evidence that 5a6imo
e6ecuted a waiver of his ri!ht to counsel. 0n li!ht
of these facts we are constrained to rule that
5a6imo 7elardeAs e6tra1&udicial statement is
inadmissible in evidence. An uncounselled e6tra1
&udicial confession without a valid waiver of the
ri!ht to counsel B that is in writin! and in the
presence of counsel B is inadmissible in evidence.
Contrary to the rulin! of the trial court the defect
in the confessions of %ito and -elson was not
cured by their si!nin! the e6tra1&udicial
statements before 2ud!e <a!alacsa./-evertheless
the infirmity of accused1appellantsA sworn
statements did not leave a void in the
prosecutionAs case. Accused1appellant 5a6imo
repeated the contents of his sworn statement to
8omualda Al!arin who in turn related these in
court. Such declaration to a private person is
admissible in evidence a!ainst accused1appellant
5a6imo pursuant to 8ule >*# Section 2C of the
8ules of Court statin! that the @act declaration or
omission of a party as to a relevant fact may be
!iven in evidence a!ainst him.D %he trial court
therefore correctly !ave evidentiary value to
8omualdaAs testimony.
And in the recent case of People vs.
Andan the Court reiterated the doctrine
enunciated in the 5a$ueda case. 0n Andan the
Court said that @when the accused tal(ed with the
mayor as confidant and not as a law enforcement
officer his uncounselled confession did not
violate his constitutional ri!hts. Constitutional
procedures on custodial investi!ation do not apply
to a spontaneous statement not elicited throu!h
$uestionin! by the authorities but !iven in an
ordinary manner whereby appellant orally
admitted havin! committed the crime.D
%reachery was not alle!ed in the
information but the suddenness of the assault
upon 'e!ino and 5aria from behind was proven
beyond reasonable doubt. As such treachery may
be appreciated as a !eneric a!!ravatin!
circumstance. %reachery e6ists when an adult
person ille!ally attac(s a child of tender years and
causes his death.
%he crime committed is the special comple6
crime of robbery with homicide defined and
penali.ed in Article 2?= of the 8evised Penal
Code. %he trial court correctly considered the
crime as robbery with homicide and not @robbery
with triple homicideD as char!ed in the
information. %he term @homicideD in Article
2?=(>) is used in its !eneric sense embracin! not
only the act which results in death but also all
other acts producin! anythin! short of death.
-either is the nature of the offense altered by the
number of (illin!s in connection with the robbery.
%he multiplicity of victims slain on the occasion
of the robbery is only appreciated as an
a!!ravatin! circumstance. %his would preclude an
anomalous situation where from the standpoint of
the !ravity of the offense robbery with one
(illin! would be treated in the same way that
robbery with multiple (illin!s would be.
PEOPLE VS A%E VALDEZ
GR No. 12"2"&, S'(). 2!, 2000, 41 SCRA 2!
FACTS: %his is an automatic review of the
decision of the 8%C of <ayombon! -ueva
7i.caya findin! accused1appellant Abe 7alde.
!uilty for violation Section ? of Ean!erous Eru!s
Act (8A C2=5). 'e was accused of plantin! and
(maybe) manufacturin! mari&uana. Eurin! trial
one of the witnesses SPO* 5arcelo %ipay
testified that at around >#4>5 a.m. of September
2= >??C he received a tip from an unnamed
informer about the presence of a mari&uana
plantation alle!edly owned by appellant at Sitio
<ulan 0bun! 7illaverde -ueva 7i.caya. %he
prohibited plants were alle!edly planted close to
appellant3s hut. Police 0nspector Ale&andro 8.
Parun!ao Chief of Police of 7illaverde -ueva
7i.caya then formed a reaction team from his
operatives to verify the report. %he team was
composed of SPO* 5arcelo 5. %ipay SPO2
-oel 7. ;ibunao SPO2 Pedro S. 5orales SPO>
8omulo 9. %obias and PO2 Alfelmer 0. <alut.
0nspector Parun!ao !ave them specific
instructions to Fuproot said mari&uana plants and
arrest the cultivator of same. %he followin! day
said police team accompanied by their informer
went to the site where the mari&uana plants were
alle!edly bein! !rown. %he police found appellant
alone in his nipa hut. %hey then proceeded to
loo( around the area where appellant had his
kaingin and saw seven (") five1foot hi!h
flowerin! mari&uana plants in two rows
appro6imately 25 meters from appellant3s
hut.PO2 <alut as(ed appellant who owned the
prohibited plants and accordin! to <alut the
latter admitted that they were his.

%he police
uprooted the seven mari&uana plants for evidence.
%he police too( photos of appellant standin!
beside the cannabis plants. Appellant was then
arrested.
5eanwhile the accused1appellant
contended that at around >#4##am of September
25 >??C he was weedin! his ve!etable farm
when he was called by a person whose identity he
does not (now. 'e was as(ed to !o with the latter
to Fsee somethin!.F 'e was brou!ht to the place
where the mari&uana plants were found
appro6imately >## meters away from his nipa hut.
+ive armed policemen were present and they
made him stand in front of the hemp plants. 'e
was then as(ed if he (new anythin! about the
mari&uana !rowin! there. ,hen he denied any
(nowled!e thereof SPO2 ;ibunao po(ed a fist at
him and told him to admit ownership of the
plants. Appellant was so nervous and afraid that
he admitted ownin! the mari&uana. %he police
then too( a photo of him standin! in front of one
of the mari&uana plants. 'e was then made to
uproot five of the cannabis plants and brin! them
to his hut where another photo was ta(en of him
standin! ne6t to a bundle of uprooted mari&uana
plants. +indin! appellant3s defense insipid the
trial court held appellant liable as char!ed for
cultivation and ownership of mari&uana plants.
Appellant contends that there was
unlawful search. +irst the records show that the
law enforcers had more than ample time to secure
a search warrant. Second that the mari&uana
plants were found in an unfenced lot does not
remove appellant from the mantle of protection
a!ainst unreasonable searches and sei.ures. +or
the appellee the Office of the Solicitor 9eneral
ar!ues that the records clearly show that there was
no search made by the police team in the first
place. %he OS9 points out that the mari&uana
plants in $uestion were !rown in an unfenced lot
and as each !rew about five (5) feet tall they
were visible from afar and were in fact
immediately spotted by the police officers when
they reached the site. %he sei.ed mari&uana plants
were thus in plain view of the police officers.
%he instant case must therefore be treated as a
warrantless lawful search under the Fplain viewF
doctrine.
ISSUE: ,O- the warrantless search was lawful.
HELD: -o. +rom the declarations of the police
officers themselves it is clear that they had at
least one (>) day to obtain a warrant to search
appellant3s farm. %heir informant had revealed his
name to them. %he place where the cannabis
plants were planted was pinpointed. +rom the
information in their possession they could have
convinced a &ud!e that there was probable cause
to &ustify the issuance of a warrant. <ut they did
not. 0nstead they uprooted the plants and
apprehended the accused on the e6cuse that the
trip was a !ood si6 hours and inconvenient to
them. 0n the instant case it was held that the
confiscated plants were evidently obtained durin!
an ille!al search and sei.ure. As to the
admissibility of the mari&uana plants as evidence
for the prosecution the SC found that said plants
cannot as products of an unlawful search and
sei.ure be used as evidence a!ainst appellant.
%hey are fruits of the proverbial poisoned tree.
%he Constitution lays down the !eneral rule that a
search and sei.ure must be carried on the stren!th
of a &udicial warrant. Otherwise the search and
sei.ure is deemed Funreasonable.F Gvidence
procured on the occasion of an unreasonable
search and sei.ure is deemed tainted for bein! the
proverbial fruit of a poisonous tree and should be
e6cluded. Such evidence shall be inadmissible in
evidence for any purpose in any proceedin!.
%he voluntary confession of ownership of
mari&uana was in violation of the custodial ri!hts
because of the absence of competent and
independent counsel and thus inadmissible too.
0n sum both the ob&ect evidence and the
testimonial evidence as to the appellantAs
voluntary confession of ownership of the
prohibited plants relied upon to prove appellantAs
!uilt failed to meet the test of constitutional
competence. ,ithout these the prosecutionAs
remainin! evidence did not even appro6imate the
$uantum of evidence necessary to warrant
appellantAs conviction. 'ence the presumption of
innocence on his favor stands.