G.R. No. 128822 May 4, 2001
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, vs. ALBERTO PASUDAG y BOKANG @ “BERTING”, accused-appellant.

FACTS

On September 26, 1995, SPO2 Pepito Calip, while on anti-jueteng operations in Barangay Artacho, Sison, Pangasinan, urinated behind a bamboo fence. From about five meters away, he saw a garden containing what he identified as marijuana plants intercropped with corn and camote. He inquired from a nearby storekeeper and learned the adjacent house belonged to Alberto Pasudag. SPO2 Calip reported this to his chief of police, who then dispatched a team to investigate. The team proceeded to Pasudag’s house that same afternoon, asked him to bring them to his backyard garden, and upon confirming the presence of the plants, photographed him beside them. The policemen uprooted seven marijuana plants, brought Pasudag and the plants to the police station, and had him sign a confiscation report. A forensic chemist later confirmed the plants were marijuana.

ISSUE

Whether the warrantless search and seizure of the marijuana plants from the appellant’s garden, and the subsequent use of the confiscated plants as evidence, are valid and admissible.

RULING

No. The Supreme Court reversed the trial court’s decision and acquitted the accused. The legal logic centers on the constitutional protection against unreasonable searches and seizures. The police conducted a warrantless search of Pasudag’s backyard garden and seized the plants without any legal justification for dispensing with a warrant. The Court found they had ample opportunity to secure a search warrant, as SPO2 Calip had already identified the plants and ascertained the owner. There was no urgency, as the plants were three months old and no evidence suggested they would be imminently destroyed. The search was therefore illegal and void ab initio. Consequently, the marijuana plants seized are considered “fruit of the poisonous tree” and are inadmissible as evidence. Furthermore, the Court ruled that Pasudag was already under custodial investigation from the moment the police team went to his house and ordered the uprooting of the plants. Any admission, including his signature on the confiscation report made without the assistance of counsel, is inadmissible. With the illegally obtained physical evidence and the uncounseled admission excluded, the prosecution’s case collapsed. The Court upheld the constitutional presumption of innocence, as the prosecution failed to establish guilt beyond reasonable doubt due to the inadmissibility of the evidence obtained in violation of the appellant’s rights.