G.R. No. 89393 ; January 25, 1991
JOHNNY DEMAISIP, petitioner, vs. COURT OF APPEALS, and the PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, respondents.

FACTS

Acting on a confidential tip, narcotics agents conducted surveillance and a test buy, confirming that marijuana was being sold from the Demaisip residence in Cagayan de Oro City. A search warrant was issued. On October 11, 1983, a team, accompanied by a barangay official, executed the warrant at the petitioner’s house. The warrant was presented to the petitioner’s father. During the search, a plastic bag containing dried leaves was found on top of a cabinet in a ground-floor room. The petitioner, Johnny Demaisip, was present and allegedly admitted ownership of the substance. The seized item was later confirmed by a PC Crime Laboratory to be marijuana weighing ten grams. Demaisip was taken for interrogation, where he executed a sworn confession after being informed of his constitutional rights, but without counsel present. The search warrant itself was never formally offered in evidence during the trial.

ISSUE

The core issues were: (1) whether the prosecution conclusively proved the seized substance was marijuana; (2) whether the evidence was admissible despite the non-presentation of the search warrant; and (3) whether the petitioner’s extrajudicial confession was admissible.

RULING

The Supreme Court affirmed the conviction. On the first issue, the Court held that the forensic report conclusively established the substance as marijuana. The petitioner’s argument—that the law requires a distinction between male and female cannabis plants—was rejected. The Court ruled that Republic Act No. 6425 , as then written, prohibited all cannabis sativa L., regardless of gender, and any reclassification was a power vested solely in the Dangerous Drugs Board, not the courts.
Regarding the search warrant’s non-presentation, the Court found the objection waived. The petitioner failed to challenge the warrant’s legality or the admissibility of the evidence obtained during the trial. Objections to a search warrant’s validity are a privilege that can be waived, and in its absence, testimonial evidence about the warrant’s existence and execution remains admissible.
Finally, the Court agreed that the extrajudicial confession was inadmissible due to the absence of counsel during its execution, a right that cannot be waived without counsel’s assistance. However, the conviction was sustained based on other sufficient evidence. The testimonies of the arresting officers who found the marijuana in the petitioner’s room, corroborated by the forensic report, constituted proof beyond reasonable doubt of illegal possession, independent of the invalid confession.