CASE TITLE: PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE, VS.

RONILO JUMARANG Y
MULINGBAYAN, ACCUSED-APPELLANT.

FACTS: The accused-appellant Ronilo Jumarang Y Mulingbayan was accused of plating, cultivating, and
culturing 3 pots of fully grown Marijuana Plants with fruiting tops on the rooftop of the De Lima
residence located at Barangay Santiago, Bato in Camarines Sur. He was arrested by Police Officer 2
Manuel Tanay and Police Officer 2 Jeric Buena who both acted on a tip that he was keeping Marijuana
Plants and conducted a surveillance operation against him. Jumarang was apprehended by both PO2
Tanay and PO2 Buena while he was descending the roof and holding a potted plant with “five finger
leaves”. After inspecting the plant that Jumarang was holding, they then instructed Jumarang to take
them upstairs to the rooftop where they found 2 other potted plants which they identified as Marijuana
plants. After concluding that the seized plants were Marijuana plants, the police officers brought
Jumarang as well as the seized evidence to the police station where a forensic chemist confirmed that
the plants were Marijuana Plants.

Jumarang denied what he was being accused of, asserting that he was bringing the Marijuana plants to
the police to report but was accosted while doing so. The police told him he was planting Marijuana
before asking him to take them to the rooftop where they saw two more Marijuana plants. Jumarang
was found guilty beyond reasonable doubt by the Regional Trial Court of violating Section 16, Article II of
Republic Act 9165 sentencing him to suffer the penalty of reclusion perpetua and ordering him to pay a
fine of P500,000.

ISSUES: Whether the Marijuana plants seized from the accused-appellant is admissible in evidence to
prove his guilt for the crime of violation of Section 16, Article II of R.A. no 9165 and whether the
prosecution was able to prove the guilt of the accused-appellant beyond reasonable doubt form the
crime of violation of Section 16, Article II of R.A. no 9165.

RULING: The accused’s contention was that his arrest was invalid because the evidence that was seized
from him was a result of a warrantless search. As stated in Section 2, Article III of the 1987 constitution,
the search and seizure must be carried out through or on the strength of a judicial warrant. In
Jumarang’s case, the evidence that was seized from him was deemed tainted and inadmissible,
Furthermore, the prosecution failed to establish that Jumarang was in the act of committing a crime in
front or in view of the police officers. Also, the arresting officer Tanay had no knowledge of the type of
plant Jumarang was holding as he merely assumed it was Marijuana aside from the fact that they were
positioned 10 meters from the house where they saw the accused-appellant who was then holding the
plant, thus, there was no cause to believe that Jumarang was holding a Marijuana plant.

As a result, the Supreme Court reversed the decision of the Court of Appeals and acquitted Jumarang for
violation of Section 16, Article II of R.A. no 9165 ( (Cultivation or Culture of Plants Classified as
Dangerous Drugs) and ordered his immediate release.