G.R. No. 89373 . March 9, 1993.
THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, vs. YOLANDA GESMUNDO, accused-appellant.

FACTS

An Information was filed against Yolanda Gesmundo for violating Section 4, Article II of Republic Act No. 6425 (Dangerous Drugs Act of 1972), as amended. It was alleged that on or about November 17, 1986, in San Pablo City, she willfully and unlawfully distributed and sold marijuana, and a plastic bag containing 100 grams of dried marijuana leaves and three rolls of magazine newspaper containing marijuana were confiscated from her possession without legal authority.
The prosecution’s version, as summarized by the trial court, was that on the morning of November 17, 1986, police officer Jose Luciano instructed a civilian informer to buy marijuana from the accused at the back of the Cocoland Hotel. Luciano positioned himself and witnessed the accused selling marijuana to the informer. That same day, Luciano applied for a search warrant. In the afternoon, a police team, accompanied by Barangay Captain Angel Capuno, served the warrant at the accused’s residence. Upon entry, the accused cried and begged them not to search, but the team insisted. The accused then led them to her kitchen and pointed to a metal basin on a table where a plastic bag containing dried marijuana flowering tops was hidden. The police also recovered three separately wrapped dried marijuana flowering tops from a native cabinet. The accused was photographed with the confiscated items and made to sign a document (“PAGPAPATUNAY”) acknowledging that the marijuana was taken from her possession. She was then brought to the police station.
The accused-appellant’s version was different. She testified that on November 17, 1986, around 1:00 p.m., policemen including Sgt. Yte and PFC Jose Luciano arrived at her house. She invited Sgt. Yte inside while Luciano remained in the jeep. While she and Sgt. Yte were in the sala, and as Yte was showing her what he claimed to be a search warrant, they heard someone from the kitchen utter “ito na.” They proceeded to the kitchen and saw PFC Luciano holding a plastic bag with four other companions who had entered through the open back door. Luciano handed the bag to Sgt. Yte, who then accused her of owning it. She denied this. She claimed she was forced to sign a pre-prepared document under pressure and with a promise to just talk at the City Hall, after which she was detained. She also testified that prior to the incident, Sgt. Yte had asked her to testify against Warner Marquez for drug pushing, and when she refused, Yte warned her to be careful as she might be the next to be charged.
The Regional Trial Court convicted Yolanda Gesmundo and sentenced her to reclusion perpetua, a fine of P25,000.00, and to pay the costs. She appealed the decision.

ISSUE

The main issues revolve around the legality of the search and seizure, the admissibility of evidence obtained, and the credibility of prosecution witnesses, which collectively question whether the guilt of the accused-appellant was proven beyond reasonable doubt.

RULING

The Supreme Court REVERSED the judgment of the trial court and ACQUITTED Yolanda Gesmundo on the ground of reasonable doubt.
1. The search was conducted in a highly irregular manner, in violation of Section 7, Rule 126 of the Rules of Court. The law mandates that a search of a house must be made in the presence of the lawful occupant or a family member, or in their absence, two witnesses of sufficient age and discretion residing in the same locality. The accused-appellant’s testimony that she was in the sala with Sgt. Yte when they heard “ito na” from the kitchen indicated that the search of her kitchen was conducted without her presence or that of any witness as required by law. This procedure, where members of a raiding party can roam unaccompanied by the required witnesses, is violative of both the spirit and letter of the law, as held in Quintero vs. NBI.
2. The admission embodied in the “PAGPAPATUNAY” document was inadmissible in evidence. It was obtained in violation of the accused-appellant’s rights during custodial investigation. The records showed she was not informed of her right not to sign the document, her right to counsel, and that the document could be used against her.
3. The police failed to comply with the mandatory duty to deliver the seized property to the judge who issued the warrant, together with a verified inventory. The trial judge cited Yee Sue Koy vs. Almeda to justify the police and NBI’s retention of the specimens. However, that case required approval by the issuing court for such retention, whereby the custody of the agents becomes the custody of the court. No such approval was shown in this case, making the police’s retention and delivery to the NBI unauthorized.
4. There were irreconcilable contradictions in the testimonies of the prosecution witnesses regarding the search and seizure. For instance, PFC Luciano testified that the accused pointed to the metal basin where the marijuana was, while Pat. Rizalde Perez testified that it was the accused who actually brought out the plastic bag from the basin. Barangay Captain Capuno also gave conflicting statements about whether he saw the actual taking of the marijuana or just saw it after it was seized. These contradictions cast serious doubt on the prosecution’s narrative.
Given the illegal manner of the search, the inadmissibility of the extrajudicial admission, the failure to follow proper custody procedures for seized items, and the material inconsistencies in the testimonies of the prosecution witnesses, the Court concluded that the evidence did not establish the guilt of the accused-appellant beyond reasonable doubt. The inculpatory facts were capable of an explanation consistent with innocence—that the evidence was planted. Therefore, the accused-appellant was acquitted and ordered released unless held for another lawful cause.