People of the Philippines vs. Alberto Pasudag y Bokang

A warrantless search and seizure of property is illegal and void ab initio when law enforcers had ample opportunity to secure a search warrant and there was no urgency or necessity justifying the warrantless search. Evidence obtained through such illegal search and seizure is inadmissible in evidence against the accused, and any admission made during custodial investigation without assistance of counsel is likewise inadmissible.

The case involves a prosecution for violation of Section 9 of R.A. No. 6425, the Dangerous Drugs Act, which penalizes the illegal cultivation of marijuana. The Constitution guarantees the right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects against unreasonable searches and seizures, and provides that any evidence obtained in violation of this right is inadmissible. The constitutional protection extends to both innocent and guilty alike against any form of high-handedness of law enforcers, regardless of the praiseworthiness of their intentions.

On September 26, 1995, at around 1:30 in the afternoon, SPO2 Pepito Calip of the PNP Sison, Pangasinan, went to Brgy. Artacho to conduct anti-jueteng operations. While urinating at a bushy bamboo fence behind the public school, he saw, about five meters away, a garden of about 70 square meters containing marijuana plants in between corn plants and camote tops. He inquired from a storekeeper nearby as to who owned the house with the garden, and the storeowner told him that Alberto Pasudag owned it.

SPO2 Calip reported his discovery to Chief of Police Romeo C. Astrero, who dispatched a team composed of SPO2 Calip, SPO3 Fajarito, SPO3 Alcantara, and PO3 Rasca to conduct an investigation. At around 2:30 that same afternoon, the team arrived at Brgy. Artacho and went straight to the house of accused Pasudag. SPO3 Fajarito asked the accused to bring the team to his backyard garden, which was about five meters away. Upon seeing the marijuana plants, the policemen called for a photographer, who took pictures of accused Pasudag standing beside one of the marijuana plants. The team uprooted seven marijuana plants and brought the accused and the plants to the police station.

At the police station, accused Pasudag admitted, in the presence of Chief of Police Astrero, that he owned the marijuana plants. SPO3 Fajarito prepared a confiscation report, which accused Pasudag signed. The police kept six marijuana plants inside the cabinet in the office of the Chief of Police and brought the tallest plant to the PNP Crime Laboratory for examination. Major Theresa Ann Bugayong Cid, a forensic chemist, received the specimen on October 11, 1995, and her Chemistry Report No. D-O87-95 was positive for marijuana (tetrahydrocannabinol).

The testimony of SPO3 Jovencio Fajarito revealed that the accused was not informed of his constitutional rights before being questioned. Fajarito admitted that he did not inform Pasudag of his constitutional rights because he believed such rights need only be communicated when taking a written statement in the presence of counsel. The Chief of Police also interrogated the accused without informing him of his rights. The accused was the only civilian present in the Office of the Chief of Police during the interrogation and signing of the confiscation receipt, and no counsel assisted him.

• Identity of the Specimen: Accused-appellant contended that the trial court erred in finding that the marijuana plant submitted for laboratory examination was one of the seven marijuana plants confiscated from his garden.
• Confiscation Report as Extrajudicial Admission: Accused-appellant argued that the trial court erred in concluding that the confiscation report was not an extrajudicial admission which required the intervention of his counsel.
• Insufficient Evidence of Cultivation: Accused-appellant maintained that the trial court erred in convicting him on the basis of inference that he planted, cultivated, and cultured the seven plants, owned the same, or that he permitted others to cultivate the same.

• Admission of Specimen Identity: The Solicitor General contended that accused-appellant admitted before the lower court that the specimen was one of the plants confiscated in his backyard.
• No Custodial Investigation: The Solicitor General argued that appellant was not under custodial investigation when he signed the confiscation report.
• Inferences Supporting Conviction: The Solicitor General maintained that the inferences deduced by the lower court strengthened the conviction of accused-appellant.

• Warrantless Search and Seizure: Whether the warrantless search and seizure of the marijuana plants from the accused's backyard garden was illegal, rendering the seized evidence inadmissible.
• Custodial Investigation: Whether the accused was under custodial investigation when he was interrogated and signed the confiscation report without assistance of counsel, rendering his admissions inadmissible.

• Warrantless Search and Seizure: Yes. The search and seizure conducted without a judicial warrant was illegal and void ab initio. The police had ample opportunity to secure a search warrant, and there was no showing of urgency or necessity for the warrantless search or immediate seizure of the marijuana plants. The seized plants were inadmissible in evidence against the accused.
• Custodial Investigation: Yes. The accused was a suspect from the moment the police team went to his house and ordered the uprooting of the marijuana plants. Custodial investigation commences when a person is taken into custody and singled out as a suspect, and police officers begin asking questions tending to elicit an admission. The accused's admissions, made without assistance of counsel and without a valid waiver, were inadmissible.

• Warrantless Search and Seizure: As a general rule, the procurement of a search warrant is required before a law enforcer may validly search or seize the person, house, papers, or effects of any individual. The Constitution provides that the right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects against unreasonable searches and seizures shall be inviolable, and any evidence obtained in violation of this provision is inadmissible. In this case, the police authorities had ample opportunity to secure from the court a search warrant. SPO2 Pepito Calip inquired as to who owned the house and immediately recognized that some plants in the backyard were marijuana plants. Time was not of the essence to uproot and confiscate the plants; they were three months old, and there was no sufficient reason to believe they would be uprooted on that same day. The prosecution's evidence clearly established that the police conducted a search of the accused's backyard garden without a warrant, had sufficient time to obtain one, and failed to do so. There was no showing of urgency or necessity for the warrantless search or the immediate seizure of the marijuana plants. The Court cited People vs. Valdez, ruling that search and seizure conducted without the requisite judicial warrant is illegal and void ab initio. The Court emphasized that lawmen cannot be allowed to violate the very law they are expected to enforce, and that quick solutions of crimes and apprehension of malefactors do not justify a callous disregard of the Bill of Rights. The mantle of protection extended by the Bill of Rights covers both innocent and guilty alike against any form of high-handedness of law enforcers, regardless of the praiseworthiness of their intentions.

• Custodial Investigation: The testimony of SPO3 Jovencio Fajarito revealed that the accused was not duly informed of his constitutional rights. Fajarito admitted that he did not inform the accused of his rights because he believed such rights were only required when taking a written statement in the presence of counsel. The Chief of Police also interrogated the accused without informing him of his constitutional rights. After the interrogation, SPO3 Fajarito prepared a confiscation report, which was part of the investigation, and the accused signed it. In both the interrogation and the signing of the confiscation receipt, no counsel assisted the accused, and he was the only civilian present in the Office of the Chief of Police. The Court disagreed with the Solicitor General's contention that the accused was not under custodial investigation when he signed the confiscation receipt. Custodial investigation commences when a person is taken into custody and is singled out as a suspect in the commission of a crime under investigation, and the police officers begin to ask questions on the suspect's participation therein which tend to elicit an admission. Obviously, the accused was a suspect from the moment the police team went to his house and ordered the uprooting of the marijuana plants in his backyard garden. The implied acquiescence to the search, if there was any, could not have been more than mere passive conformity given under intimidating or coercive circumstances and is thus considered no consent at all within the purview of the constitutional guarantee. Even if the confession or admission were "gospel truth," if it was made without assistance of counsel and without a valid waiver of such assistance, the confession is inadmissible in evidence. In light of the foregoing, the Court upheld the constitutional right of the accused to a presumption of innocence, as the prosecution failed to establish his guilt beyond reasonable doubt.

• Warrantless Search and Seizure — As a general rule, the procurement of a search warrant is required before a law enforcer may validly search or seize the person, house, papers, or effects of any individual. A warrantless search and seizure is illegal and void ab initio when law enforcers had ample opportunity to secure a search warrant and there was no urgency or necessity justifying the warrantless search. Evidence obtained through such illegal search and seizure is inadmissible in evidence against the accused. The Court applied this doctrine in finding that the police had sufficient time to obtain a search warrant for the accused's backyard garden but failed to do so, rendering the seized marijuana plants inadmissible.

• Custodial Investigation — Custodial investigation commences when a person is taken into custody and is singled out as a suspect in the commission of a crime under investigation, and the police officers begin to ask questions on the suspect's participation therein which tend to elicit an admission. A confession or admission made without assistance of counsel and without a valid waiver of such assistance is inadmissible in evidence. The Court applied this doctrine in finding that the accused was a suspect from the moment the police team went to his house and ordered the uprooting of the marijuana plants, and that his admissions made without counsel were inadmissible.

• Presumption of Innocence — The prosecution must establish the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt. When the prosecution's evidence is rendered inadmissible due to constitutional violations, the accused is entitled to acquittal under the presumption of innocence. The Court applied this doctrine in acquitting the accused because the prosecution failed to establish his guilt beyond reasonable doubt after the illegally seized evidence and inadmissible admissions were excluded.

• "As a general rule, the procurement of a search warrant is required before a law enforcer may validly search or seize the person, house, papers or effects of any individual." — This passage states the general rule on search and seizure, establishing the baseline requirement that law enforcers must obtain a judicial warrant before conducting searches and seizures.

• "Lawmen cannot be allowed to violate the very law they are expected to enforce." — This passage articulates the principle that law enforcement officers must themselves comply with constitutional requirements, and that violations of the Bill of Rights cannot be justified by the difficulties of law enforcement.

• "The Court is not unmindful of the difficulties of law enforcement agencies in suppressing the illegal traffic of dangerous drugs. However, quick solutions of crimes and apprehension of malefactors do not justify a callous disregard of the Bill of Rights." — This passage addresses the tension between effective law enforcement and constitutional protections, holding that the former cannot override the latter.

• "The mantle of protection extended by the Bill of Rights covers both innocent and guilty alike against any form of high handedness of law enforcers, regardless of the praise worthiness of their intentions." — This passage establishes that constitutional protections apply to all persons, including those accused of crimes, regardless of the intentions of law enforcers.

• People vs. Valdez, G.R. No. 129296, September 25, 2000 — Controlling precedent cited for the rule that search and seizure conducted without the requisite judicial warrant is illegal and void ab initio, and that evidence obtained through such illegal search is inadmissible.

• People vs. Encinada, 345 Phil. 301, 321 [1997] — Cited for the principle that lawmen cannot be allowed to violate the very law they are expected to enforce, and that implied acquiescence to a search under intimidating or coercive circumstances is no consent at all.

• People vs. Pavillare, G.R. No. 129970, April 5, 2000 — Cited for the definition of when custodial investigation commences, namely when a person is taken into custody and singled out as a suspect and police officers begin asking questions tending to elicit an admission.

• People vs. Mara, 236 SCRA 565, 573 [1994] — Cited in support of the definition of custodial investigation as stated in People vs. Pavillare.

• People vs. Sevilla, G.R. No. 124077, September 5, 2000 — Cited for the general rule that the procurement of a search warrant is required before a law enforcer may validly search or seize the person, house, papers, or effects of any individual.

• Article III, Section 2, Constitution — Provides that the right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects against unreasonable searches and seizures of whatever nature and for any purpose shall be inviolable. The Court applied this provision in finding that the warrantless search and seizure of the marijuana plants was illegal.

• Article III, Section 3, Constitution — Provides that any evidence obtained in violation of the right against unreasonable searches and seizures is inadmissible. The Court applied this provision in excluding the seized marijuana plants from evidence.

• Section 9, R.A. No. 6425, as amended (Dangerous Drugs Act) — The provision penalizing the illegal cultivation of marijuana, under which the accused was charged and convicted by the trial court, and from which he was acquitted on appeal due to constitutional violations.

Davide, Jr., C.J., Puno, Kapunan, and Ynares-Santiago, JJ., concurred.