G.R. No.

133917 February 19, 2001

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee,
vs.
NASARIO MOLINA y MANAMA @ "BOBONG" and GREGORIO MULA y MALAGURA
@ "BOBOY", accused-appellants.
Legal Dispute:
The legal dispute revolves around the legality of the arrest and subsequent search and
seizure of the accused-appellants for alleged drug possession. The defense argues that
the evidence, marijuana seized, is inadmissible due to a violation of their constitutional
right against unreasonable searches and seizures.
Facts:
• Accused-appellants Nasario Molina y Manamat, also known as "Bobong," and Gregorio Mula
y Malagura, also known as "Boboy," faced charges for violating Section 8 of the Dangerous
Drugs Act of 1972 (Republic Act No. 6425), as amended by Republic Act No. 7659.
• On August 8, 1996, in the City of Davao, Philippines, accused-appellants were discovered in
possession of 946.9 grams of dried marijuana. The arrest and subsequent search leading to
the discovery were executed without a warrant.
• SPO1 Marino Paguidopon, a member of the Philippine National Police, received information
about an alleged marijuana pusher in Davao City. Acting on this tip, SPO1 Paguidopon
pointed out accused-appellants as the suspected pushers.
• In the morning of August 8, 1996, the police intercepted accused-appellants on a "trisikad,"
a local form of transportation. During this encounter, accused-appellant Mula handed a
black bag to accused-appellant Molina. Upon inspection, the bag was found to contain dried
marijuana leaves, resulting in the arrest of accused-appellants.
• During the subsequent trial, accused-appellants pleaded not guilty and contested the
legality of the evidence, citing a violation of their constitutional right against unreasonable
searches and seizures. The trial court, however, found them guilty beyond reasonable doubt
and sentenced them to the death penalty by lethal injection.
• Accused-appellants appealed this decision for automatic review, arguing for the
inadmissibility of the evidence due to the alleged violation of their constitutional rights.

Reliefs Prayed For:

• Accused-appellants prayed for the marijuana to be deemed inadmissible as
evidence due to the violation of their constitutional rights.
• The Solicitor General prayed for the acquittal of both accused-appellants.
Issues:
• The admissibility of the seized marijuana as evidence due to alleged violation of
constitutional rights against unreasonable searches and seizures.
• The appropriate penalty for the violation of Section 8 of the Dangerous Drugs Act
of 1972.
Holdings:
• The Court held that the arrest and subsequent search were invalid and violated
the accused-appellants' constitutional rights.
• Due to the lack of admissible evidence, the Court acquitted the accused-
appellants.
Reasoning:
• The Court reasoned that the arrest and search were not valid under the
recognized exceptions to the warrant requirement.
• The accused-appellants did not exhibit any overt acts indicative of a crime,
making the arrest without a warrant unjustifiable.
• The Court emphasized the importance of upholding constitutional rights, even in
the fight against drug addiction, and condemned encroachments on fundamental
rights.
Resulting Legal Rule/s:
• The Court emphasized that warrantless searches and seizures are permissible
only under specific exceptions, and the burden lies on the prosecution to prove
the legality of the arrest and search.
Dictum (Dicta):
• The Court emphasized the significance of protecting fundamental rights, even in
efforts to combat drug addiction. It underscored that all efforts for a drug-free
society must respect the fundamental rights and liberties of individuals.
Disposition:
• The Court reversed and set aside the trial court's decision, acquitting accused-
appellants Nasario Molina and Gregorio Mula due to the lack of admissible
evidence. The accused-appellants were ordered to be released unless validly
detained for other offenses, with no costs imposed.