G.R. No. 250306. August 10, 2022.
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE, VS. RONILO JUMARANG Y MULINGBAYAN, ACCUSED-APPELLANT.

FACTS

Accused-appellant Ronilo Jumarang was charged with violating Section 16 of R.A. No. 9165 for cultivating marijuana plants. The prosecution alleged that on April 11, 2010, police officers, acting on a tip, conducted surveillance and saw Jumarang tending plants on his rooftop. They observed him holding a potted plant with distinctive leaves, which they suspected to be marijuana. The officers approached, instructed him to put the plant down, and asked to see the rooftop. Jumarang complied and allowed them access. On the roof, the officers found two additional pots of suspected marijuana plants. All three plants were confiscated, subjected to inventory in the presence of required witnesses, and later confirmed by forensic examination to be marijuana.
Jumarang presented a different version. He testified that he was merely visiting his in-laws and, while cleaning the rooftop, discovered the marijuana plants. He claimed he was in the process of bringing one plant to report to the police when the officers arrived, misinterpreted his actions, and arrested him. The Regional Trial Court found him guilty beyond reasonable doubt and sentenced him to reclusion perpetua and a fine. The Court of Appeals affirmed the conviction but modified the penalty to life imprisonment.

ISSUE

The core issue is whether the marijuana plants seized from the accused are admissible as evidence, given the contention that they were obtained through an invalid warrantless search and arrest.

RULING

The Supreme Court reversed the lower courts’ decisions and acquitted Jumarang. The Court held that the warrantless search and seizure violated his constitutional rights, rendering the confiscated plants inadmissible as evidence. For a valid search incidental to a lawful arrest under Rule 126, Section 13 of the Rules of Court, the arrest must precede the search, and the search must be contemporaneous and confined to the person and the area within his immediate control. Here, the police officers had no personal knowledge that a crime had just been committed when they saw Jumarang holding a plant; mere suspicion based on its appearance did not justify a warrantless arrest. Consequently, there was no lawful arrest to which a search could be incidental.
Furthermore, the Court rejected the prosecution’s claim of a valid consented search. Consent to a search must be unequivocal, specific, and intelligently given, not merely presumed from passive compliance. The prosecution failed to prove that Jumarang voluntarily and knowingly waived his right against unreasonable searches. His act of allowing the officers to go up the roof, under the circumstances of their sudden intrusion and show of authority, did not constitute a valid waiver. As the seized marijuana plants were the corpus delicti of the crime and were obtained through an unconstitutional search, they were inadmissible as the “fruit of the poisonous tree.” With no competent evidence to sustain the conviction, Jumarang was acquitted and ordered immediately released.