FACTS:

Appellant Abe Valdez was charged with violating the Dangerous Drugs Act of 1972 by cultivating and owning seven fully grown marijuana plants in Nueva Vizcaya. Acting on a tip, the police formed a reaction team and accompanied by an informant, went to the reported site where they found the plants near appellant's hut. The police uprooted the plants and arrested appellant, later confirming that they were indeed marijuana. During trial, appellant testified that he was coerced into admitting ownership by the police and a barangay peace officer who held a grudge against him.

The trial court found appellant guilty and sentenced him to death. Appellant raised several errors on appeal, including the admissibility of the seized plants, the failure of the prosecution to prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt, and the imposition of the death penalty.

ISSUES:

1. Whether or not the search and seizure conducted by the police officers is valid without a search warrant.

2. Whether or not the "plain view" doctrine applies to the case.

3. Whether or not the admission made by the accused can be used as evidence against him.

4. Whether the admission of ownership of the marijuana plants by the appellant can be used against him, considering his right to counsel during police investigation.

5. Whether the investigation conducted by the police officers was a general inquiry or meant to elicit information on the ownership of the marijuana plants.

6. Whether the appellant's right to counsel had attached at the time he admitted ownership of the marijuana plants.

7. Whether the seized marijuana plants were obtained in violation of the accused's constitutional rights against unreasonable searches and seizures.

8. Whether the alleged confession of ownership of the marijuana plants made by the accused during the police investigation is admissible in court.

RULING:

1. The search and seizure conducted by the police officers is deemed invalid without a search warrant. The Constitution provides that a search and seizure must be carried out on the strength of a judicial warrant, unless there are specific instances where searches are allowed without warrants. In this case, there was no search warrant issued by a judge, and the police officers had sufficient time and information to obtain one. Thus, the search and seizure conducted is unreasonable and the evidence obtained is considered tainted and inadmissible.

2. The "plain view" doctrine does not apply to the case. The doctrine requires the following elements to be present: a prior valid intrusion, the evidence is inadvertently discovered, the evidence is immediately apparent, and plain view justifies the mere seizure of evidence. However, in this case, the police officers first located the marijuana plants before the accused was arrested without a warrant. The discovery of the plants was not inadvertent, and a further search was needed. Hence, the doctrine does not apply.

3. The admission made by the accused cannot be used as evidence against him. Although the admission was made in the absence of any independent and competent counsel, the accused was not under custodial investigation at the time. Therefore, his admission is admissible in evidence and not violative of the constitutional requirement that admissions given during custodial investigation should be made with the presence of counsel.

4. The admission of ownership of the marijuana plants cannot be used against the appellant as it violates his right to counsel during the police investigation.

5. The investigation conducted by the police officers was not a general inquiry, but focused on eliciting information on the ownership of the marijuana plants.

6. The appellant's right to counsel had already attached at the time he admitted ownership of the marijuana plants, and therefore, his admission should not have been relied upon.

7. The seized marijuana plants were obtained in violation of the accused's constitutional rights against unreasonable searches and seizures. The search and seizure were conducted without a judicial warrant and therefore, were void ab initio. The prosecution failed to establish any urgency or necessity for the warrantless search and seizure. The marijuana plants cannot be used to prove the accused's guilt as they were obtained in violation of the constitutional guarantees against illegal searches and the inadmissibility of evidence procured under an unlawful search and seizure.

8. The alleged confession of ownership of the marijuana plants made by the accused during the police investigation is not admissible in court. The confession was made without the assistance of competent and independent counsel, which is a violation of the accused's right under the Constitution. Therefore, the confession cannot be used to convict the accused without running afoul of the Constitution's requirement of the suspect's right to have the services of competent and independent counsel during a criminal investigation.

PRINCIPLES:

• The protection against illegal search and seizure is constitutionally mandated and evidence obtained from an unreasonable search and seizure is deemed inadmissible.

• The "plain view" doctrine applies when the police officer is not searching for evidence against the accused and inadvertently comes across incriminating objects.

• The right against unreasonable searches and seizures refers to the right of personal security and is not limited to specific places.

• Admissions made by an accused during custodial investigation are inadmissible in evidence if given without the presence of counsel.

• The Constitution guarantees a person's right to remain silent, have competent and independent counsel, and be informed of such rights during an investigation for the commission of an offense

• The right to counsel cannot be waived except in writing and in the presence of counsel.

• An investigation begins when it is no longer a general inquiry but focuses on a particular person as a suspect.

• Once the police try to elicit admissions or confessions from a person suspected of committing an offense, the person should be assisted by counsel, unless they waive the right in writing and in the presence of counsel.

• Custodial investigation refers to questioning initiated by law enforcement officers after a person has been taken into custody or otherwise deprived of his freedom of action in any significant way.

• For a confession to be admissible, it must be voluntary, made with the assistance of competent and independent counsel, express, and in writing.

• Competent evidence is generally admissible evidence that meets the court's requirements for admissibility.

• The Constitution decrees that the accused shall be presumed innocent until proven guilty, and to justify the conviction of the accused, the prosecution must present sufficient evidence to overcome the presumption of innocence.

• Evidence obtained in violation of the accused's constitutional rights, such as the right against unreasonable searches and seizures and the right to counsel, are inadmissible in court.

• The prosecution must stand or fall on its evidence and cannot draw strength from the weakness of the evidence for the accused.

• If the evidence presented by the prosecution fails to meet the required degree of proof of the accused's guilt beyond reasonable doubt, the accused is entitled to an acquittal.