people vs. valdes

1
PEOPLE V. ABE VALDEZ G.R. NO. 129296 Accused was found guilty of violating the Dangerous Drugs Act of 1972., An extrajudicial confession was made as to the ownership of marijuana plants. HELD: The marijuana plants seized were product of an illegal search because of the absence of search warrant and are therefore inadmissible in evidence. The voluntary confession of ownership of marijuana was in violation of the custodial rights because of the absence of competent and independent counsel, and thus, inadmissible too. In sum, both the object evidence and the testimonial evidence as to the appellant’s voluntary confession of ownership of the prohibited plants relied upon to prove appellant’s guilt failed to meet the test of constitutional competence. Without these, the prosecution’s remaining evidence did not even approximate the quantum of evidence necessary to warrant appellant’s conviction. Hence, the presumption of innocence on his favor stands.

Upload: maanyag6685

Post on 13-Dec-2015

215 views

Category:

Documents


1 download

DESCRIPTION

nat res

TRANSCRIPT

Page 1: PEOPLE vs. Valdes

PEOPLE V. ABE VALDEZ

G.R. NO. 129296

Accused was found guilty of violating the Dangerous Drugs Act of 1972.,  An extrajudicial confession was

made as to the ownership of marijuana plants.

HELD:    

The marijuana plants seized were product of an illegal search because of the absence of search warrant and

are therefore inadmissible in evidence.  The voluntary confession of ownership of marijuana was in violation

of the custodial rights because of the absence of competent and independent counsel, and thus,

inadmissible too.  In sum, both the object evidence and the testimonial evidence as to the appellant’s

voluntary confession of ownership of the prohibited plants relied upon to prove appellant’s guilt failed to

meet the test of constitutional competence.  Without these, the prosecution’s remaining evidence did not

even approximate the quantum of evidence necessary to warrant appellant’s conviction.  Hence, the

presumption of innocence on his favor stands.