You are on page 1of 1

Pp vs.

Gesmundo
219 SCRA 743; G.R. No. 89373; 19 Mar. 1993

Facts:
there were two contradicted testimonies

According to the prosecution, in the morning of Nov. 17, 1986, PO Jose Luciano gave money
and instructed his civilian informer to buy marijuana from the accused at the Cocoland Hotel. He
actually saw the accused selling marijuana to his civilian informer and that same day Luciano
applied for a search warrant.

About 2pm that day, a police raiding team armed with a search warrant went to the Brgy captain
for them to be accompanied in serving the said warrant at the residence of the accused. The
police was allowed to enter the house upon the strength of the warrant shown to the accused.
The accused begged the police not to search and to leave the house. The police still searched
the house and was led to the kitchen. She pointed a metal basin on top of a table as the hiding
place of died marijuana flowering tops contained in a plastic bag marked ISETANN. The police
also recovered from a native uway cabinet dried marijuana flowering tops wrapped in 3 pieces
of komiks paper.

According to the accused, when the police arrived at her house, she saw Sgt. Yte and PFC
Jose Luciano. She invited Sgt. Yte to enter her house while Luciano was left in the jeep that was
parked near the house. While inside the house Yte showed the accused something he claimed
as a search warrant, when someone coming from the kitchen uttered eto na They proceeded
to the kitchen and saw Luciano holding a plastic bag with four other companions. They
confronted the accused and insisted that the bags belonged to her. Accused denied the
accusation and told them that she doesnt know anything about it. She was made to sign a
prepared document. She was brought to the police station and was detained.

The court renders judgment finding the accused guilty.

Issue:
Whether or not the search was proper

Ruling:
No. document of PAGPAPATUNAY was inadmissible as the accused was not informed of her
right not to sign the document neither was she informed that she has the right to the assistance
of a counsel. It was not proved that the marijuana belonged to her