People v. Gesmundo G.R. No. 89373 March 9, 1993 219SCRA7 3 !

ac"s# Accused-appellant Yolanda Gezmundo was convicted by the trial court for violation of Dangerous Drugs Act of 197 for the alleged selling of mari!uana" #he prosecution$s version of the story is that police officer %ose &uciano instructed his civilian informer to buy mari!uana from the accused" 'e saw the accused selling mari!uana to his civilian informer" (n the same day) a raiding police team armed with *earch +arrant went to the residence of the accused" #he accused led the team into her ,itchen and she pointed to a metal basin on top of a table as the hiding place of the dried mari!uana flowering tops contained in a plastic bag" #he police also recovered from an away cabinet dried mari!uana flowering tops wrapped separately paper" After the discovery) the accused was photographed together with the confiscated items" #hereafter) accused was made to ac,nowledge in writing that the dried mari!uana flowering tops were ta,en from her possession and control inside her residence" Accused-appellant$s version) on the other hand is that *gt" Yte was invited by accused-appellant to enter the house" +hile seated at the) sala) *gt" Yte was showing to accused-appellant a search warrant when someone uttered the following words "ito na" coming from the direction where the ,itchen of the house is" *he) together with *gt" Yte proceeded to the ,itchen and saw -./ &uciano holding a plastic bag with four other companions who entered the house through the bac, door" &uciano handed the bag to *gt" Yte who) after e0amining the contents) confronted the accused-appellant and insisted that the plastic bag came from her" *he denied the accusation" #hen she was made to sign a prepared document with her name already printed on it" *gt" Yte as,ed help from accused-appellant to testify against one +arner 1ar2uez) son of her former landlord) for drug pushing" Accused refused but *gt" Yte was forcing her to testify against 1ar2uez" *gt" Yte left word that accused) should be careful as she might be the ne0t to be charged with drug pushing $ssue# +hether or not the evidence against accused are validly seized to secure her conviction" Rul%n&# 3o" #he 4nvestigation 5eport states that the raiding team discovered a hole at the bac,yard of the house of the suspect with a can inside the hole and on top of the cover a flower pot was placed wherein the mari!uana were confiscated" 4n the testimonies of &uciano and *gt" Yte) there was no mention of any mari!uana obtained from a flower pot as stated in the investigation report" #his shows inconsistencies as to where the mari!uana was found" 4rreconcilable and une0plained contradictions in the testimonies of the prosecution witnesses cast doubt on the guilt of appellant and his culpability to the crime charged" #he search of the accused-appellant$s house was conducted in violation of *ection 7) 5ule 1 6 of the 5ules of /ourt which provides that no search of a house) room or any other premise shall be made e0cept in the presence of the lawful occupant thereof or any member of his family or in the absence of the latter) in the presence of two witnesses of sufficient age and discretion residing in the same locality" 4t is true that the police were able to get an admission from the accused-appellant that mari!uana was found in her possession but said admission embodied in a document entitled 7-AG-A-A#83AY7 previously prepared by the police) is inadmissible in evidence against the accused appellant for having been obtained in violation of her rights as a person under custodial investigation for the commission of an offense" #he records show that the accused appellant was not informed of her right not to sign the document9 neither was she informed of her right to the assistance of counsel and the fact that the document may be used as evidence against her" Also) the person ma,ing the search has the duty to issue a detailed receipt for the property seized and re2uired to deliver the property seized to the !udge who issued the warrant) together with a true and accurate inventory thereof duly verified under oath" #he inventory was not clearly established in the trial court" 4f the e0culpatory facts and circumstances are capable of two or more e0planations) one of which is consistent with the innocence of the accused and the other consistent with his guilt) then the evidence does not fulfill the test of moral certainty and is not sufficient to support a conviction" #herefore) accused-appellant was ac2uitted"