PEOPLE V.

DELOS REYES
G.R. No. 174774, August 31, 2011
LEONARDO-DE CASTRO, J.:

FACTS:
On February 17, 2000, accused-appellants Rolando S. delos Reyes and Raymundo G.
Reyes, Emmanuel de Claro, and Mary Jane Lantion-Tom were all arrested for illegal
possession, sale, delivery, distribution, and/or transportation of Methamphetamine
Hydrochloride , a regulated drug commonly known as shabu. The office of the City
Prosecutor of Mandaluyong City, in its Resolution dated March 3, 2000, found probable
cause to indict accused-appellants, together with Emmanuel de Claro for violation of
Republic Act No. 6425, and resolved to continue the preliminary investigation in so far as
Lantion-Tom was concerned. After reinvestigation, charged against Lantion-Tom was
dismissed. On September 23, 2003, RTC found accused-appellants and Emmanuel de
Claro guilty beyond reasonable doubt for unlawfully possessing/selling, delivering,
transporting and distributing methamphetamine hydrochloride otherwise known as shabu
and hereby sentenced to suffer the penalty of life imprisonment and to pay a fine of
20,000.00 each costs of suit. The accused-appellants and Emmanuel de Claro filed their
notice of appeal, however, Emmanuel de Claro subsequently moved to withdraw his
notice of appeal, instead, filing before the RTC an Omnibus Motion for reconsideration
and to Re-open Proceeding. RTC acquitted de Claro on January 12, 2004 while the
pending case of accused-appellants was forwarded by RTC to CA. Court of Appeals
sustained the conviction of accused-appellants and modified the penalty imposed upon
them from life imprisonment to reclusion perpetua. The case was elevated to Supreme
Court.

ISSUE:
Whether or not accused-appellants should be acquitted.

RULING:
YES.
In presumption of Innocence, “the inculpatory facts admit of several interpretations, as
one consistent with the accused’s innocence and another with his guilt, the evidence thus
fail to meet the test of moral certainty.” The Supreme Court found the findings and
conclusion of RTC in its subsequent Order dated January 12, 2004 in which it acquitted
Emmanuel de Claro is more keeping with the evidence on record in this case. It bears to
stress that the same evidence were presented against Emmanuel de Claro and accused-
appellants ; if the evidence is insufficient to convict the former, then it is also insufficient
to convict the latter.
Evident from the forgoing excerpts that police officers arrested accused-appellants
and searched the latter’s person without a warrant after seeing de los Reyes and de Claro
conversing in the restaurant, and witnessing white plastic bag with a box or carton inside
being passed from Lantion-Tom to de Claro to de los Reyes and to Reyes again. The
circumstances hardly constitutes overt acts indicative of felonious enterprise. The police
officers relied on the information given only by their confidential informant and none of
them actually saw what was inside the box and they took no effort in confirming if the
suspects knew that the bag contained shabu. They were not able to established cogent
fact or circumstance that would have reasonably made them to suspect that the accused-
appellants, de Claro and Lantion-Tom has just committed, is actually committing, or is
attempting to commit (in flagrante delicto) a crime.
Lastly, applying the Fruit of Poisonous Tree Doctrine that without valid justification
for the in flagrante delicto arrests of accused-appellants, the search, and the eventual
seizure of the shabu form accused-appelants’ possession, are also considered unlawful
and, thus, the seized shabu is excluded in evidence as fruit of the poisonous tree. Without
the corpus delicti for the crime charged, then the acquittal of accused-appelants is
inevitable.