Republic of the Philippines SUPREME COURT Manila FIRST DIVISION G.R. No.

128822 May 4, 2001

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, vs. ALBERTO PASUDAG y BOKANG @ BERTING, accusedappellant. PARDO, J.! The case is an appeal f o! the decision " of the Re#ional T ial $ou t, Pan#asinan, % anch &', ( daneta findin# accused )lbe to Pasuda# * %o+an# #uilt* be*ond easonable doubt of ille#al cultivation of !a i,uana - and sentencin# hi! to reclusion perpetua and to pa* a fine of P.//,///.//, 0ithout subsidia * penalt* and accesso ies of the la0. On Dece!be "1, "22', &th )ssistant P ovincial P osecuto of Pan#asinan 3!iliano M. Mat o filed 0ith the Re#ional T ial $ou t, Pan#asinan, ( daneta an Info !ation4 cha #in# accused )lbe to Pasuda# * %o+an# 0ith violation of R.). No. '&-., Sec. 2, eadin# as follo0s5 6That on o about Septe!be -', "22. and p io dates the eto at ba an#a* ) tacho, !unicipalit* of Sison, p ovince of Pan#asinan and 0ithin the ,u isdiction of this 7ono able $ou t, the abovena!ed accused, did, then and the e 0illfull*, unla0full* and feloniousl* plant, cultivate, and cultu e seven 819 hills of !a i,uana in the land tilled b* hi! and situated beside the house of the accused, 0ithout autho it* o pe !it to do so. 6$ont a * to Sec. 2 of R.). '&-. as a!ended.6 On Feb ua * "/, "221, the t ial cou t a ai#ned the accused. 7e pleaded not #uilt*.& T ial ensued. On Septe!be -', "22., at a ound "54/ in the afte noon, SPO- Pepito $alip of the PNP Sison, Pan#asinan, 0ent to % #*. ) tacho to conduct anti-,ueten# ope ations. 7e u inated at a bush* ba!boo fence behind the public school. )bout five 8.9 !ete s a0a*, he sa0 a #a den of about 1/ s:ua e !ete s. The e 0e e !a i,uana plants in bet0een co n plants and ca!ote tops. 7e in:ui ed f o! a sto e+eepe nea b* as to 0ho o0ned the house 0ith the #a den. The sto eo0ne told hi! that )lbe to Pasuda# o0ned it..

SPO- $alip 0ent to the Police Station and epo ted to $hief of Police Ro!eo $. )st e o. The latte dispatched tea! 8co!posed of SPO- $alip, SPO4 Fa,a ito, SPO4 )lcanta a and PO4 Rasca9 to conduct an investi#ation. )t a ound -54/ in that sa!e afte noon, the tea! a ived at % #*; ) tacho and 0ent st ai#ht to the house of accused Pasuda#. SPO4 Fa,a ito loo+ed fo accused Pasuda# and as+ed hi! to b in# the tea! to his bac+*a d #a den 0hich 0as about five 8.9 !ete s a0a*.' (pon seein# the !a i,uana plants, the police!en called fo a photo# aphe , 0ho too+ pictu es of accused Pasuda# standin# besides one of the !a i,uana plants.1 The* up ooted seven 819 !a i,uana plants. The tea! b ou#ht accused Pasuda# and the !a i,uana plants to the police station.< )t the police station, accused Pasuda# ad!itted, in the p esence of $hief of Police )st e o, that he o0ned the !a i,uana plants.2 SPO4 Fa,a ito p epa ed a confiscation epo t"/ 0hich accused Pasuda# si#ned."" 7e +ept the si= !a i,uana plants inside the cabinet in the office of the $hief of Police and b ou#ht the tallest plant "- to the PNP $ i!e >abo ato * fo e=a!ination. "4 Ma,o The esa )nn %u#a*on# $id, a fo ensic che!ist at the PNP $ i!e >abo ato *, eceive the speci!en "& on Octobe "", "22.. She testified that she too+ so!e leaves f o! the !a i,uana plant because the leaves had the !ost concent ation of tet ah*d ocannabinol. )s pe he $he!ist * Repo t No. D-O<1-2.,". the e=a!ination 0as positive fo !a i,uana 8tet ah*d ocannabinol9."' On Ma ch "<, "221, the t ial cou t ende ed a decision findin# the accused #uilt* as cha #ed and, ta+in# into conside ation his educational attain!ent 8he eached onl* # ade IV9, i!posed the !ini!u! of the i!posable penalt*, thus5 6?73R3FOR3, @(DAM3NT is ende ed $ONVI$TINA )>%3RTO P)S(D)A of the c i!e cha #ed in the info !ation and he is he eb* sentenced to suffe the penalt* of Reclusion Pe petua and to pa* a fine of P.//,///.// 0ithout subsidia * penalt* and othe accesso ies of the la0. 6The 1 full* # o0n !a i,uana plants confiscated in favo of the #ove n!ent. ae

6SO ORD3R3D. 6Done this "1th da* of Ma ch, "221, at ( daneta, Pan#asinan. 8S#d. 9 MOD3STO $. @( )NSON @ud#e6"1 7ence, this appeal."< In his b ief, accused-appellant contended that the t ial cou t e ed in findin# that the !a i,uana plant sub!itted fo labo ato * e=a!ination 0as one of the seven 819 !a i,uana plants confiscated f o! his #a den; that the t ial cou t e ed in concludin# that the confiscation epo t 0as not an e=t a,udicial ad!ission 0hich e:ui ed the inte vention of his counsel; and in convictin# hi! on the basis of infe ence that he planted, cultivated and cultu ed the seven 819 plants, o0ned the sa!e o that he pe !itted othe s to cultivate the sa!e."2 The Solicito Aene al contended that accused-appellant ad!itted befo e the lo0e cou t that tile speci!en-/ 0as one of the plants confiscated in his bac+*a d; that appellant 0as not unde custodial investi#ation 0hen he si#ned the confiscation epo t; and that the infe ences deduced b* the lo0e cou t st en#thened the conviction of accusedappellant..-" ?e find the appeal !e ito ious. )s a #ene al ule, the p ocu e!ent of a sea ch 0a ant is e:ui ed befo e a la0 enfo ce !a* validl* sea ch o seiBe the pe son, house, pape s o effects of an* individual. -- The $onstitution p ovides that 6the i#ht of the people to be secu e in thei pe sons, houses, pape s and effects a#ainst un easonable sea ches and seiBu es of 0hateve natu e and fo an* pu pose shall be inviolable, = = =.6 -4 )n* evidence obtained in violation of this p ovision is inad!issible.-& In tile case at ba , the police autho ities had a!ple oppo tunit* to secu e f o! the cou t a sea ch 0a ant. SPOPepito $alip in:ui ed as to 0ho o0ned the house.-. 7e 0as ac:uainted 0ith !a i,uana plants and i!!ediatel* eco#niBed that so!e plants in the bac+*a d of the house 0e e !a i,uana plants.-' Ti!e 0as not of the essence to up oot and confiscate the plants. The* 0e e th ee !onths old-1 and the e 0as no sufficient eason to believe that the* 0ould be up ooteds on that sa!e da*. In People vs. ValdeB-< the $ou t uled that sea ch and seiBu e conducted 0ithout the e:uisite ,udicial 0a ant is ille#al and void ab initio. The p osecutionCs evidence clea l* established that the police conducted a sea ch of accusedCs

6The ?a den of ( daneta, %u eau of @ail Mana#e!ent and Penolo#*, is he eb* o de ed to co!!it the bod* of )lbe to Pasuda# to the National %ilibid P ison i!!ediatel* upon eceipt he eof.

bac+*a d #a den 0ithout a 0a ant; the* had sufficient ti!e to obtain a sea ch 0a ant; the* failed to secu e one. The e 0as no sho0in# of u #enc* o necessit* fo the 0a antless sea ch, o the i!!ediate seiBu e of the !a i,uana plants. 6>a0!en cannot be allo0ed to violate the ve * la0 the* a e e=pected to enfo ce.6-2 6The $ou t is not un!indful of the difficulties of la0 enfo ce!ent a#encies in supp essin# the ille#al t affic of dan#e ous d u#s. 7o0eve , :uic+ solutions of c i!es and app ehension of !alefacto s do not ,ustif* a callous dis e#a d of the %ill of Ri#hts.64/ ?e need not unde sco e that the p otection a#ainst ille#al sea ch and seiBu e is constitutionall* !andated and onl* unde specific instances a e sea ches allo0ed 0ithout 0a ants.6 4" 6The !antle of p otection e=tended b* the %ill of Ri#hts cove s both innocent and #uilt* ali+e a#ainst an* fo ! of hi#h handedness of la0 enfo ce s, e#a dless of the p aise 0o thiness of thei intentions.64?ith the ille#al seiBu e of the !a i,uana plants sub,ect of this case, the seiBed plants a e inad!issible in evidence a#ainst accused-appellant.44 The a est of accused-appellant 0as tainted 0ith constitutional infi !it*. The testi!on* of SPO4 @ovencio Fa,a ito4& eveals that appellant 0as not dul* info !ed of his constitutional i#hts, thus5 6 6)TTD5 3STR)D)5 E5 In fact, *ou 0ent to the house of )lbe to Pasuda#F )5 Des si . E5 )nd in fact *ou invited hi! to the place 0he e !a i,uana plants 0e e plantedF )5 Des si . E5 Then and the e, *ou sta ted as+in# :uestion f o! hi!F )5 Des si .

E5 %efo e *ou p opounded :uestions to )lbe to Pasuda#, as acco din# to *ou, *ou 0e e al ead* info !ed that he 0as the cultivato b* so!e pe sons 0hose na!e until no0 *ou do not +no0F )5 Des si . E5 Did you not inform Alberto , Pasudag his constitutional rights? A: I did not inform him because onl* 0hen I 0ill too+ 8sic9 his state!ent in the p esence of his counsel and to be educed in 0 itin#, si . E5 ?hat *ou 0ant to i!p ess, *ou 0ill info ! onl* a pe son of his constitutional i#hts if *ou ta+e his state!ent in 0 itin#F )5 Des si . E5 Is that *ou !ethodF )5 I info !ed the accused if l have to place it is state!ent into 0 itin#, si . E5 )cco din# to *ou, *ou invited )lbe to Pasuda# to the alle#ed place 0he e the !a i,uana 0e e planted, then and the e, *ou as+ed hi! 0ho planted the sa!e, and acco din# to *ou, he said he planted the sa!eF )5 Des si . === === === E5 )cco din# to *ou, *ou b ou#ht )lbe to Pasuda# to the Office of the $hief of Police of Sison, Pan#asinanF )5 Des si . E5 In fact the $hief of Police 0as the eF )5 Des si . E5 Ro!eo )st. e o 0as the Senio Inspecto F ,

E5 And according to you, Alberto Pasudag was interrogated by the Chief of Police F )5 es sir: !: In fact the $hief of Police 0as as+in# )lbe to Pasuda# in *ou p esenceF 0ho planted the !a i,uana plants and acco din# to *ou, )lbe to Pasuda# ad!itted in *ou p esence that he planted the alle#ed !a i,uana plantsF )5 Des si . E5 %efo e $hief Inspecto Ro!eo )st e o inte o#ated )lbe to Pasuda#, he did not also info ! )lbe to Pasuda# his constitutional i#hts, pa ticula l* the i#hts of a pe son unde custodial inte o#ationF )5 ?hat I +no0, he ,ust as+ed )lbe to Pasuda# the ve acit* 0hethe o not he planted the said plants. E5 In other words, *ou ans0e is, your Chief of Police did not inform Alberto Pasudag his constitutional rights? )5 No si .6 8e!phasis supplied9 )fte the inte o#ation, SPO4 Fa,a ito p epa ed a confiscation epo t,4. 0hich 0as pa t of the investi#ation.4')ccused-)ppellant si#ned the confiscation epo t.41 In both the inte o#ation and the si#nin# of the confiscation eceipt, no counsel assisted accused-appellant. 7e 0as the onl* civilian p esent in the Office of the $hief of Police.4< ?e do not a# ee 0ith the Solicito Aene al that accusedappellant 0as not unde custodial investi#ation 0hen he si#ned the confiscation eceipt. It has been held epeatedl* that custodial investi#ation co!!ences 0hen a pe son is ta+en into custod* and is sin#led out as a suspect in the co!!ission of a c i!e unde investi#ation and the police office s be#in to as+ :uestions on the suspectCs pa ticipation the ein and 0hich tend to elicit an ad!ission.42Obviousl*, accused-appellant 0as a suspect f o! the !o!ent the police tea! 0ent to his house and o de ed the up ootin# of the !a i,uana plants in his bac+*a d #a den. 6The i!plied ac:uiescence to the sea ch, if the e 0as an*, could not have been !o e that !e e passive confo !it* #iven unde inti!idatin# o coe cive ci cu!stances and is thus conside ed no consent at all 0ithin the pu vie0 of the constitutional #ua antee.6&/ 3ven if the confession o ad!ission 0e e 6#ospel t uth6, if it 0as !ade 0ithout

E5 In fact *ou sta ted as+in# :uestions to elucidate f o! hi! info !ation of ad!ission e#a din# the o0ne ship of the plants in :uestionF )5 I onl* as+ed 0ho eall* planted and cultivated the plants si .

)5 Des si . E5 In othe 0o ds, SPO- $alip, )lcanta a, Ro!eo Rasca and )lbe to Pasuda# 0e e inside the office of the $hief of PoliceF )5 Des si .

assistance of counsel and 0ithout a valid 0aive of such assistance, the confession is inad!issible in evidence.&" In li#ht of the fo e#oin#, 0e uphold the constitutional i#ht of accused-appellant to a p esu!ption of innocence. The p osecution failed to establish his #uilt be*ond easonable doubt. "HEREFORE, the decision of the t ial cou t is he eb* RE#ERSED a$% SET ASIDE. )ccusedappellant ALBERTO PASUDAG y BOKANG is AC&UITED of the c i!e cha #ed fo lac+ of p oof be*ond easonable doubt. The Di ecto of $o ections is he eb* di ected to fo th0ith elease accused-appellant unless he is held fo anothe case, and to info ! the $ou t of the action ta+en he eon 0ithin ten 8"/9 da*s f o! notice. $osts de oficio. SO ORD3R3D. "#wphi".n$t Davide, %r., C.%., Puna, &apunan, and nares'(antiago, %%. , concu . Foo'$o'() "@ud#e Modesto $. @uanson, p esidin#. $ i!. $ase No. (-2"42, p o!ul#ated on Mach "<, "221, O i#inal Reco d, pp. .<-1". - Violation of R.) No.'&-., Sec. 2, as a!ended, othe 0ise +no0 as the Dan#e ous D u#s )ct. 4O i#inal Reco d, p. "4. & lbid., p. 4/. . TSN, Feb ua * -/, "221, pp. --&. '"bid., pp. .-'. 1 3=hs. 6D6, 6D-"6 and 6D--6. < TSN, Feb ua * -/, "221, pp. '-2. 2 lbid., p. "". "/ 3=h. 6I6. "" CTSN, Feb ua * -1, "221, p. 2. "- 3=h. 6%6. The si= othe !a i,uana plants 0e e !a +ed as 3=hs. 67-&6 to 67-26.

"4 TSN, Feb ua * "1, "221, p. "4. "& 3=h. 6%6 8the tallest !a i,uana plant, as pe TSN, Feb ua * "1, "221, p. "2 and TSN, Feb ua * -., "221, p. 49 and 3=h. 6%--6 8b o0n envelope containin# leaves ta+en f o! 3=h, 6%69, ". 3=h. 6$6. "' TSN, Feb ua * "4, "221, pp, . - 1,

4' TSN, Feb ua * "1, "221. p. 4/. 41 TSN, Feb ua * -1. "221. p. 2. 4< TSN. Feb ua * "1. "221. p. -<. ,* People v. Pavillare, A.R. No."-221/, )p il .. -///. citin# People v. /ara. -4' S$R) .'.. .14 G"22&H. 01 People v. +ncinada. sup a. Note -2. at p. 4--.

"1 Decision, p. "& 8O i#inal Reco d, p, 1"9. 0" People v. -alde.. sup a, Note -<. "< Notice of )ppeal, O i#inal Reco d, p. 1&, Rollo. p, 42. "2 )ppellantCs % ief, Rollo, pp. 14-<4. -/ 3=h. 6%6. -" )ppelleeCs % ief, Rollo, pp. "/2-"".. )) People v. (evilla, A.R. No."-&/11, Septe!be ., -///. -4 ) ticle """, Sec. -, $onstitution. -& ) ticle Ill, Sec. 4, $onstitution. -. TSN, Feb ua * -/, "221, p. &. -' Ibid6 p. "". -1 TSN, Feb ua * "1, "221, pp. -.--'. -< A.R. No."-2-2', Septe!be -., -///. )* People v. +ncinada, 4&. Phil. 4/", 4-" G"221H. 4/ lbid., at p. 4-4. ," People v. -alde., sup a, Note -<. 4- lbid. 44 lbid. 4& TSN, Feb ua * "1, "221, pp. -'--2. 4. 3=h. 6I6.