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$uare s$uare meters meters.. %here %here were were mari&u mari&uana ana plants plants in between corn plants and camote tops. 'e in$uired from a storeeeper nearby as to who owned the house with the !arden. %he store owner told him that Pasuda! owned it. A team was dispatched and the team arrived and went strai!ht to the house of accused Pasuda!. %he police looed for accused Pasuda! and ased him to brin! the team to his bacyard !arden which was about five (5) meters away away.. pon pon seei seein! n! the the mari mari&u &uan anaa plant plants s the the policemen called for a photo!rapher who too pictures of accused Pasuda! standin! beside one of the mari&uana plants. %hey uprooted seven (") mari mari&u &uana ana plan plants ts.. %he %he team team brou! brou!ht ht accus accused ed Pasuda! and the mari&uana plants to the police statio station. n. At the police police statio station n accused accused Pasuda! Pasuda! admit admitte ted d in the the pres presen ence ce of Chie Chieff of Poli Police ce Astr Astrer ero o that that he owned owned the the mari mari&u &uan anaa plant plants. s. SPO* SPO* +a&a +a&ari rito to prep prepar ared ed a conf confis isca cati tion on repo report rt which accused Pasuda! si!ned. ISSUE: ,O- the arrest and seiure valid/ HELD: As a !eneral rule the procurement of a search warrant is re$uired before a law enforcer may validly search or seie 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$uired as to who owned the house. 'e was ac$uai ac$uainte nted d with with mari&u mari&uana ana plants plants and immediately reco!nied that some plants in the bacyard of the house were mari&uana plants. %ime ime was was not not of the the esse essenc ncee to upro uproot ot and 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 seiure of the mari&uana plants sub&ect of this case the seied plants are inadmissible in evidence a!ainst accused1appellant. %he %he arre arrest st of accu accuse sed1 d1ap appe pell llan antt was was tain tainte ted d with with cons consti titu tuti tion onal al infi infirm rmit ity y. %he %he testimony testimony of SPO* ovencio +a&arito +a&arito reveals reveals that appellant was not duly informed of his constitutional ri!hts. 0t has been held repeatedly that custodial investi!atio investi!ation n commences commences when a
person is taen 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 $uestio $uestions ns on the suspect suspect3s 3s partic participa ipatio tion n therei therein n and which tend to elicit an admission. Obviously accused1appellant was a suspect from the moment the police team went to his house and ordered the uprootin! uprootin! of the mari&uana mari&uana plants in his bacyard !arden.
PEOPLE VS ZUELA 2 SCRA !8", #2000$ FACTS 4%he case is an appeal of accused a6imo 7elar elarde de y de los los 8ey 8eyes es -el -elson 9ar 9arcia cia y %emporas and %ito :uela y orandarte from the decision of the 8%C Camarines Sur ;ibmanan
?"* Constitution/ HELD: %he ri!ht to counsel attaches the moment an investi!atin! officer starts to as $uestions to elicit information on the crime from the suspected offender offender.. .. 0n other words @the moment there is a move or even ur!e of said investi!ators to elicit admi dmissions or con confess essions ons or even ven plain info inform rmat atio ion n whic which h may may appe appear ar inno innoce cent nt or inno innocuo cuous us at the the time time from from said said susp suspec ect t he shoul should d then then and ther theree be assi assist sted ed by coun counse sel l unless he waives the ri!ht but the waiver shall be made in writin! and in the presence of counsel. %her %heree was was no evid eviden ence ce that that a6i a6imo mo e6ecuted e6ecuted a waiver of his ri!ht to counsel. counsel. 0n li!ht of thes thesee fact facts s we are are const constra rain ined ed to rule rule that that a6imo a6imo 7elarde elardes e6tra1 e6tra1&ud &udici icial al statem statement ent is inadmissib inadmissible le in evidence. evidence. An uncounselled uncounselled e6tra1 e6tra1 &udicial confession without a valid waiver of the ri!ht to counsel B that is in writin! and in the presence of counsel B is inadmissible in evidence. Contrary to the rulin! of the trial court the defect in the confessions of %ito and -elson was not cur cured by thei heir si!ni !nin! the e6t e6tra1 ra1&udi &udici cial al statements before ud!e
8omualda Al!arin who in turn related these in court. Such declaration to a private person is admissible in evidence a!ainst accused1appellant a6imo pursuant to 8ule >*# Section 2 of the 8ules of Court statin! that the @act declaration or omission of a party as to a relevant fact may be !iven in evidence a!ainst him.D %he trial court therefore correctly !ave evidentiary value to 8omualdas testimony. And in the recent case of People vs. Andan the Court reiterated the doctrine enunciated in the a$ueda case. 0n Andan the Court said that @when the accused taled 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 aria 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 attacs a child of tender years and causes his death. %he crime committed is the special comple6 crime of robbery with homicide defined and penalied 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 #4>5 a.m. of September 2= >?? he received a tip from an unnamed informer about the presence of a mari&uana plantation alle!edly owned by appellant at Sitio 8omulo 9. %obias and PO2 Alfelmer 0. #4##am of September 25 >?? he was weedin! his ve!etable farm when he was called by a person whose identity he does not now. 'e was ased 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 ased if he new anythin! about the mari&uana !rowin! there. ,hen he denied any nowled!e thereof SPO2 ;ibunao poed 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 taen 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 seiures. +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 seied 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.
confiscated plants were evidently obtained durin! an ille!al search and seiure. 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 seiure 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 seiure must be carried on the stren!th of a &udicial warrant. Otherwise the search and seiure is deemed Funreasonable.F Gvidence procured on the occasion of an unreasonable search and seiure 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 appellants voluntary confession of ownership of the prohibited plants relied upon to prove appellants !uilt failed to meet the test of constitutional competence. ,ithout these the prosecutions remainin! evidence did not even appro6imate the $uantum of evidence necessary to warrant appellants conviction. 'ence the presumption of innocence on his favor stands.
