EN BANC

[G.R. No. 129296. September 25, 2000]

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, vs. AE !AL"E# $ "ELA %R&#, accused-appellant.
" E % I S I O N
'&IS&(ING, J.)
For automatic review is the decision[1] promulgated on February 18 1!!" by the #egional $rial Court o% Bayombong Nueva
&i'caya Branch (" in Criminal Case No) *1+,) -t %ound appellant Abe &alde' y .ela Cru' guilty beyond reasonable doubt %or violating
/ection ! o% the .angerous .rugs Act o% 1!"( 0#)A) No) 12(,3 as amended by #)A) No) "1,!) 4e was sentenced to su%%er the penalty o%
death by lethal in5ection)
-n an -n%ormation dated /eptember (1 1!!1 appellant was charged as %ollows67$hat on or about /eptember (, 1!!1 at /itio
Bulan Barangay /awmill 8unicipality o% &illaverde 9rovince o% Nueva &i'caya 9hilippines and within the 5urisdiction o% this 4onorable
Court the above:named accused who was caught in flagrante delicto and without authority o% law did then and there wil%ully 0sic3
unlaw%ully and %eloniously plant cultivate and culture seven 0"3 %ully grown mari5uana plants ;nown as -ndian 4emp weighing ()1!2
;ilos %rom which dangerous drugs maybe 0sic3 manu%actured or derived to the damage and pre5udice o% the government o% the #epublic
o% the 9hilippines)
7$hat the property where the said seven 0"3 %ully grown mari5uana plants were planted cultivated and cultured shall be con%iscated and
escheated in %avor o% the government)
7C<N$#A#= $< >A?)7[(]
<n November 1, 1!!1 appellant was arraigned and with assistance o% counsel pleaded not guilty to the charge) $rial on the
merits then ensued)
$he %irst witness %or the prosecution was /9<* 8arcelo $ipay a member o% the police %orce o% &illaverde Nueva &i'caya) 4e
testi%ied that at around 1+61, a)m) o% /eptember (2 1!!1 he received a tip %rom an unnamed in%ormer about the presence o% a
mari5uana plantation allegedly owned by appellant at /itio Bulan -bung &illaverde Nueva &i'caya)[*] $he prohibited plants were
allegedly planted close to appellant@s hut) 9olice -nspector Ale5andro #) 9arungao Chie% o% 9olice o% &illaverde Nueva &i'caya then
%ormed a reaction team %rom his operatives to veri%y the report) $he team was composed o% /9<* 8arcelo 8) $ipay /9<( Noel &)
>ibunao /9<( 9edro /) 8orales /9<1 #omulo A) $obias and 9<( Al%elmer -) Balut) -nspector 9arungao gave them speci%ic instructions
to 7uproot said mari5uana plants and arrest the cultivator o% same)B[2]
At approCimately ,6++ o@cloc; A)8) the %ollowing day said police team accompanied by their in%ormer le%t %or the site where the
mari5uana plants were allegedly being grown) A%ter a three:hour uphill tre; %rom the nearest barangay road the police operatives
arrived at the place pinpointed by their in%ormant) $he police %ound appellant alone in his nipa hut) $hey then proceeded to loo; around
the area where appellant had his kaingin and saw seven 0"3 %ive:%oot high %lowering mari5uana plants in two rows approCimately (,
meters %rom appellant@s hut)[,] 9<( Balut as;ed appellant who owned the prohibited plants and according to Balut the latter admitted
that they were his)[1]

$he police uprooted the seven mari5uana plants which weighed ()1!2 ;ilograms)["] $he police too; photos o%
appellant standing beside the cannabis plants)[8] Appellant was then arrested) <ne o% the plants weighing 1)+!+ ;ilograms was sent to
the 9hilippine National 9olice Crime >aboratory in Bayombong Nueva &i'caya %or analysis)[!] -nspector 9revy Fabros >uwis the Crime
>aboratory %orensic analyst testi%ied that upon microscopic eCamination o% said plant she %ound cystolitic hairs containing calcium
carbonate a positive indication %or mari5uana)[1+] /he neCt conducted a chemical eCamination the results o% which con%irmed her initial
impressions) /he %ound as %ollows6
7/9EC-8EN /DB8-$$E.6 ECh 7A7 : 1)+!+ grams o% uprooted suspected mari5uana plant placed inside a white sac; with mar;ings)
C C C
7F-N.-NA/6 Eualitative eCamination conducted on the above stated specimen gave 9</-$-&E result to the test %or 8ari5uana a
prohibited drug)7[11]
$he prosecution also presented a certi%ication %rom the .epartment o% Environment and Natural #esources that the land cultivated
by appellant on which the growing mari5uana plants were %ound was >ot *((2 o% $imberland Bloc; B which %ormed part o% the
-ntegrated /ocial Forestry Area in &illaverde Nueva &i'caya)[1(] $his lot was part o% the public domain) Appellant was ac;nowledged in
the certi%ication as the occupant o% the lot but no Certi%icate o% /tewardship had yet been issued in his %avor)[1*]
As its sole witness the de%ense presented appellant) 4e testi%ied that at around 1+6++ o@cloc; A)8) /eptember (, 1!!1 he was
weeding his vegetable %arm in /itio Bulan when he was called by a person whose identity he does not ;now) 4e was as;ed to go with the
latter to 7see something)7[12] $his un;nown person then brought appellant to the place where the mari5uana plants were %ound
approCimately 1++ meters away %rom his nipa hut)[1,] Five armed policemen were present and they made him stand in %ront o% the
hemp plants) 4e was then as;ed i% he ;new anything about the mari5uana growing there) ?hen he denied any ;nowledge thereo% /9<(
>ibunao po;ed a %ist at him and told him to admit ownership o% the plants)[11] Appellant was so nervous and a%raid that he admitted
owning the mari5uana)[1"]
$he police then too; a photo o% him standing in %ront o% one o% the mari5uana plants) 4e was then made to uproot %ive o% the
cannabis plants and bring them to his hut where another photo was ta;en o% him standing neCt to a bundle o% uprooted mari5uana
plants)[18] $he police team then brought him to the police station at &illaverde) <n the way a certain Fi;o 9ascua a barangay peace
o%%icer o% Barangay /awmill accompanied the police o%%icers) 9ascua who bore a grudge against him because o% his re%usal to
participate in the %ormer@s illegal logging activities threatened him to admit owning the mari5uana otherwise he would 7be put in a bad
situation)7[1!] At the police headGuarters appellant reiterated that he ;new nothing about the mari5uana plants sei'ed by the police)
[(+]
<n cross:eCamination appellant declared that there were ten other houses around the vicinity o% his kaingin, the nearest house
being 1++ meters away)[(1] $he latter house belonged to one Carlito 0>ito3 9ascua an uncle o% the barangay peace o%%icer who had a
grudge against him) $he spot where the mari5uana plants were %ound was located between his house and Carlito 9ascua@s)[((]
$he prosecution presented /9<* $ipay as its rebuttal witness) 4is testimony was o%%ered to rebut appellant@s claim that the
mari5uana plants were not planted in the lot he was cultivating)[(*] $ipay presented a s;etch he made[(2] which showed the location o%
mari5uana plants in relation to the old and new nipa huts o% appellant as well as the closest neighbor) According to $ipay the mari5uana
plot was located 2+ meters away %rom the old hut o% &alde' and (,+ meters distant %rom the hut o% Carlito 9ascua)[(,] $ipay admitted
on cross:eCamination that no surveyor accompanied him when he made the measurements)[(1] 4e %urther stated that his basis %or
claiming that appellant was the owner or planter o% the sei'ed plants was the in%ormation given him by the police in%ormer and the
proCimity o% appellant@s hut to the location o% said plants)[("]
Finding appellant@s de%ense insipid the trial court held appellant liable as charged %or cultivation and ownership o% mari5uana
plants as %ollows6
7?4E#EF<#E %inding the accused AD->$= beyond reasonable doubt o% cultivating mari5uana plants punishable under section ! o% the
.angerous .rugs Act o% 1!"( as amended accused is hereby sentenced to death by lethal in5ection) Costs against the accused)
7/< <#.E#E.)7[(8]
Appellant assigns the %ollowing errors %or our consideration6
I
$4E $#-A> C<D#$ A#A&E>= E##E. -N A.8-$$-NA A/ E&-.ENCE $4E /E&EN 0"3 8A#-HDANA 9>AN$/ .E/9-$E $4E-#
-NA.8-//-B->-$= BE-NA 9#<.DC$/ <F AN ->>EAA> /EA#C4)
II
$4E $#-A> C<D#$ A#A&E>= E##E. -N C<N&-C$-NA A99E>>AN$ <F &-<>A$-<N <F /EC$-<N ! #E9DB>-C AC$ N<) 12(, .E/9-$E
$4E -NA.8-//-B->-$= <F $4E CORPUS DELICTI AN. $4E FA->D#E <F $4E 9#</ECD$-<N $< 9#<&E 4-/ AD->$ BE=<N.
#EA/<NAB>E .<DB$)
III
$4E $#-A> C<D#$ A#A&E>= E##E. -N -89</-NA $4E /D9#E8E 9ENA>$= <F .EA$4 D9<N A99E>>AN$ .E/9-$E FA->D#E <F $4E
9#</ECD$-<N $< 9#<&E $4A$ $4E >AN. ?4E#E $4E 8A#-HDANA 9>AN$/ ?E#E 9>AN$E. -/ A 9DB>-C >AN. <N $4E
A//D89$-<N $4A$ -N.EE. A99E>>AN$ 9>AN$E. $4E /DBHEC$ 8A#-HDANA)[(!]
/imply stated the issues are6
013 ?as the search and sei'ure o% the mari5uana plants in the present case law%ulI
0(3 ?ere the sei'ed plants admissible in evidence against the accusedI
0*3 4as the prosecution proved appellant@s guilt beyond reasonable doubtI
023 -s the sentence o% death by lethal in5ection correctI
$he %irst and second issues will be 5ointly discussed because they are interrelated)
Appellant contends that there was unlaw%ul search) First the records show that the law en%orcers had more than ample time to
secure a search warrant) /econd that the mari5uana plants were %ound in an un%enced lot does not remove appellant %rom the mantle o%
protection against unreasonable searches and sei'ures) 4e relies on the ruling o% the D/ /upreme Court in Terry v. Ohio, 3! US ", !#
L. Ed !d $$, $$ S. Ct. "$%$ &"%$', to the e%%ect that the protection against unreasonable government intrusion protects people not
places)
For the appellee the <%%ice o% the /olicitor Aeneral argues that the records clearly show that there was no search made by the
police team in the %irst place) $he </A points out that the mari5uana plants in Guestion were grown in an un%enced lot and as each grew
about %ive 0,3 %eet tall they were visible %rom a%ar and were in %act immediately spotted by the police o%%icers when they reached the
site) $he sei'ed mari5uana plants were thus in plain view o% the police o%%icers) $he instant case must there%ore be treated as a
warrantless law%ul search under the 7plain view7 doctrine)
$he court a ()o upheld the validity o% the search and con%iscation made by the police team on the %inding that6
7)))-t seems there was no need %or any search warrant) $he policemen went to the plantation site merely to ma;e a veri%ication) ?hen
they %ound the said plants it was too much to eCpect them to apply %or a search warrant) -n view o% the remoteness o% the plantation
site 0they had to wal; %or siC hours bac; and %orth3 and the dangers lur;ing in the area i% they stayed overnight they had a valid reason
to con%iscate the said plants upon discovery without any search warrant) 8oreover the evidence shows that the lot was not legally
occupied by the accused and there was no %ence which evinced the occupant@s desire to ;eep trespassers out) $here was there%ore no
privacy to protect hence no search warrant was reGuired)7[*+]
$he Constitution[*1] lays down the general rule that a search and sei'ure must be carried on the strength o% a 5udicial warrant)
<therwise the search and sei'ure is deemed 7unreasonable)7 Evidence procured on the occasion o% an unreasonable search and sei'ure
is deemed tainted %or being the proverbial %ruit o% a poisonous tree and should be eCcluded)[*(] /uch evidence shall be inadmissible in
evidence %or any purpose in any proceeding)[**]
-n the instant case there was no search warrant issued by a 5udge a%ter personal determination o% the eCistence o% probable
cause) From the declarations o% the police o%%icers themselves it is clear that they had at least one 013 day to obtain a warrant to search
appellant@s %arm) $heir in%ormant had revealed his name to them) $he place where the cannabis plants were planted was pinpointed)
From the in%ormation in their possession they could have convinced a 5udge that there was probable cause to 5usti%y the issuance o% a
warrant) But they did not) -nstead they uprooted the plants and apprehended the accused on the eCcuse that the trip was a good siC
hours and inconvenient to them) ?e need not underscore that the protection against illegal search and sei'ure is constitutionally
mandated and only under speci%ic instances are searches allowed without warrants)[*2] $he mantle o% protection eCtended by the Bill o%
#ights covers both innocent and guilty ali;e against any %orm o% high:handedness o% law en%orcers regardless o% the praiseworthiness o%
their intentions)
?e %ind no reason to subscribe to /olicitor Aeneral@s contention that we apply the 7plain view7 doctrine) For the doctrine to apply
the %ollowing elements must be present6
0a3 a prior valid intrusion based on the valid warrantless arrest in which the police are legally present in the pursuit o% their
o%%icial dutiesJ
0b3 the evidence was inadvertently discovered by the police who have the right to be where they areJ and
0c3 the evidence must be immediately apparentJ and
0d3 plain view 5usti%ied mere sei'ure o% evidence without %urther search)[*,]
-n the instant case recall that 9<( Balut testi%ied that they %irst located the mari5uana plants be%ore appellant was arrested
without a warrant)[*1] 4ence there was no valid warrantless arrest which preceded the search o% appellant@s premises) Note %urther that
the police team was dispatched to appellant@s kaingin precisely to search %or and uproot the prohibited %lora) $he sei'ure o% evidence in
7plain view7 applies only where the police o%%icer is not searching %or evidence against the accused but inadvertently comes across an
incriminating ob5ect)[*"] Clearly their discovery o% the cannabis plants was not inadvertent) ?e also note the testimony o% /9<( $ipay
that upon arriving at the area they %irst had to 7loo; around the area7 be%ore they could spot the illegal plants)[*8] 9atently the sei'ed
mari5uana plants were not 7immediately apparent7 and a 7%urther search7 was needed) -n sum the mari5uana plants in Guestion were
not in 7plain view7 or 7open to eye and hand)7 $he 7plain view7 doctrine thus cannot be made to apply)
Nor can we sustain the trial court@s conclusion that 5ust because the mari5uana plants were %ound in an un%enced lot appellant
could not invo;e the protection a%%orded by the Charter against unreasonable searches by agents o% the /tate) $he right against
unreasonable searches and sei'ures is the immunity o% one@s person which includes his residence his papers and other possessions)
[*!] $he guarantee re%ers to 7the right o% personal security7[2+] o% the individual) As appellant correctly points out what is sought to be
protected against the /tate@s unlaw%ul intrusion are persons not places)[21] $o conclude otherwise would not only mean swimming
against the stream it would also lead to the absurd logic that %or a person to be immune against unreasonable searches and sei'ures he
must be in his home or o%%ice within a %enced yard or a private place) $he Bill o% #ights belongs as much to the person in the street as to
the individual in the sanctuary o% his bedroom)
?e there%ore hold with respect to the %irst issue that the con%iscated plants were evidently obtained during an illegal search and
sei'ure) As to the second issue which involves the admissibility o% the mari5uana plants as evidence %or the prosecution we %ind that
said plants cannot as products o% an unlaw%ul search and sei'ure be used as evidence against appellant) $hey are %ruits o% the
proverbial poisoned tree) -t was there%ore a reversible error on the part o% the court a ()o to have admitted and relied upon the sei'ed
mari5uana plants as evidence to convict appellant)
?e now proceed to the third issue which revolves around the su%%iciency o% the prosecution@s evidence to prove appellant@s guilt)
4aving declared the sei'ed mari5uana plants inadmissible in evidence against appellant we must now address the Guestion o% whether
the remaining evidence %or the prosecution su%%ices to convict appellantI
-n convicting appellant the trial court li;ewise relied on the testimony o% the police o%%icers to the e%%ect that appellant admitted
ownership o% the mari5uana when he was as;ed who planted them) -t made the %ollowing observation6
7-t may be true that the admission to the police by the accused that he planted the mari5uana plants was made in the absence o% any
independent and competent counsel) But the accused was not at the time o% police veri%icationJ under custodial investigation) 4is
admission is there%ore admissible in evidence and not violative o% the constitutional %iat that admission given during custodial
investigation is not admissible i% given without any counsel)7[2(]
Appellant now argues that his admission o% ownership o% the mari5uana plants in Guestion cannot be used against him %or being
violative o% his right to counsel during the police investigation) 4ence it was error %or the trial court to have relied upon said admission
o% ownership) 4e submits that the investigation conducted by the police o%%icers was not a general inGuiry but was meant to elicit
in%ormation on the ownership o% the mari5uana plants) Appellant theori'es that since the investigation had narrowed down to him
competent and independent counsel should have assisted him when the police sought in%ormation %rom him regarding the ownership o%
the prohibited plants) Appellant claims the presumption o% regularity o% duty o% o%%icers cannot be made to apply to his purported
voluntarily con%ession o% ownership o% the mari5uana plants) Nor can it override his constitutional right to counsel during investigation)
$he <%%ice o% the /olicitor Aeneral believes otherwise) $he </A avers that appellant was not yet under custodial investigation
when he admitted to the police that he owned the mari5uana plants) 4is right to competent and independent counsel accordingly had
not yet attached) 8oreover appellantKs %ailure to impute any %alse motive %or the police o%%icers to %alsely accuse him indicates that the
presumption o% regularity in the per%ormance o% o%%icial duties by police o%%icers was not su%%iciently rebutted)
$he Constitution plainly declares that any person under investigation %or the commission o% an o%%ense shall have the right6 013 to
remain silentJ 0(3 to have competent and independent counsel pre%erably o% his own choiceJ and 0*3 to be in%ormed o% such rights) $hese
rights cannot be waived eCcept in writing and in the presence o% counsel)[2*] An investigation begins when it is no longer a general
inGuiry but starts to %ocus on a particular person as a suspect i)e) when the police investigator starts interrogating or eCacting a
con%ession %rom the suspect in connection with an alleged o%%ense)[22] $he moment the police try to elicit admissions or con%essions or
even plain in%ormation %rom a person suspected o% having committed an o%%ense he should at that 5uncture be assisted by counsel
unless he waives the right in writing and in the presence o% counsel)[2,]
-n the instant case we %ind that %rom the start a tipster had %urnished the police appellant@s name as well as the location o%
appellant@s %arm where the mari5uana plants were allegedly being grown) ?hile the police operation was supposedly meant to merely
7veri%y7 said in%ormation the police chie% had li;ewise issued instructions to arrest appellant as a suspected mari5uana cultivator) $hus at
the time the police tal;ed to appellant in his %arm the latter was already under investigation as a suspect) $he Guestioning by the police
was no longer a general inGuiry)[21]
Dnder cross:eCamination 9<( Balut stated he 7did not yet admit that he is the cultivator o% that mari5uana so we 5ust as;ed him
and - thin; there is no need to in%orm 0him o%3 his constitutional rights because we are 5ust as;ing him)))7[2"] -n trying to elicit
in%ormation %rom appellant the police was already investigating appellant as a suspect) At this point he was already under custodial
investigation and had a right to counsel even i% he had not yet been arrested) Custodial investigation is 7Guestioning initiated by law
en%orcement o%%icers a%ter a person has been ta;en into custody or otherwise deprived o% his %reedom o% action in any signi%icant
way)7[28] As a suspect two armed policemen interrogated appellant) Behind his inGuisitors were a barangay peace o%%icer and three
other armed policemen)[2!] All had been dispatched to arrest him)[,+] From these circumstances we may in%er that appellant had
already been deprived o% his %reedom o% action in a signi%icant way even be%ore the actual arrest) Note that even be%ore he was arrested
the police made him incriminatingly pose %or photos in %ront o% the mari5uana plants)
8oreover we %ind appellant@s eCtra5udicial con%ession %lawed with respect to its admissibility) For a con%ession to be admissible it
must satis%y the %ollowing reGuirements6 013 it must be voluntaryJ 0(3 it must be made with the assistance o% competent and
independent counselJ 0*3 it must be eCpressJ and 023 it must be in writing)[,1] $he records show that the admission by appellant was
verbal) -t was also uncounselled) A verbal admission allegedly made by an accused during the investigation without the assistance o%
counsel at the time o% his arrest and even be%ore his %ormal investigation is not only inadmissible %or being violative o% the right to
counsel during criminal investigations it is also hearsay)[,(] Even i% the con%ession or admission were 7gospel truth7 i% it was made
without assistance o% counsel and without a valid waiver o% such assistance the con%ession is inadmissible in evidence regardless o% the
absence o% coercion or even i% it had been voluntarily given)[,*]
-t is %undamental in criminal prosecutions that be%ore an accused may be convicted o% a crime the prosecution must establish by
proo% beyond reasonable doubt that a crime was committed and that the accused is the author thereo%)[,2] $he evidence arrayed
against the accused however must not only stand the test o% reason[,,] it must li;ewise be credible and competent)[,1] Competent
evidence is 7generally admissible7 evidence)[,"] Admissible evidence in turn is evidence 7o% such a character that the court or 5udge is
bound to receive it that is allow it to be introduced at trial)7[,8]
-n the instant case the trial court relied on two pieces o% probative matter to convict appellant o% the o%%ense charged) $hese were
the sei'ed mari5uana plants and appellant@s purportedly voluntary con%ession o% ownership o% said mari5uana plants to the police) <ther
than these proo%s there was no other evidence presented to lin; appellant with the o%%ense charged) As earlier discussed it was error on
the trial court@s part to have admitted both o% these proo%s against the accused and to have relied upon said proo%s to convict him) For
said evidence is doubly tainted)
First as earlier pointed out the sei'ed mari5uana plants were obtained in violation o% appellant@s constitutional rights against
unreasonable searches and sei'ures) $he search and sei'ure were void a* initio %or having been conducted without the reGuisite 5udicial
warrant) $he prosecution@s very own evidence clearly establishes that the police had su%%icient time to obtain a warrant) $here was no
showing o% such urgency or necessity %or the warrantless search or the immediate sei'ure o% the mari5uana plants sub5ect o% this case) $o
reiterate said mari5uana plants cannot be utili'ed to prove appellant@s guilt without running a%oul o% the constitutional guarantees
against illegal searches and the inadmissibility o% evidence procured pursuant to an unlaw%ul search and sei'ure)
/econd the con%ession o% ownership o% the mari5uana plants which appellant allegedly made to the police during investigation is
not only hearsay but also violative o% the Bill o% #ights) $he purported con%ession was made without the assistance o% competent and
independent counsel as mandated by the Charter) $hus said con%ession cannot be used to convict appellant without running a%oul o% the
Constitution@s reGuirement that a suspect in a criminal investigation must have the services o% competent and independent counsel
during such investigation)
-n sum both the ob5ect evidence and the testimonial evidence as to appellant@s voluntary con%ession o% ownership o% the
prohibited plants relied upon to prove appellant@s guilt %ailed to meet the test o% Constitutional competence)
$he Constitution decrees that 7-n all criminal prosecutions the accused shall be presumed innocent until the contrary is
proved)))7[,!] $o 5usti%y the conviction o% the accused the prosecution must adduce that Guantum o% evidence su%%icient to overcome the
constitutional presumption o% innocence) $he prosecution must stand or %all on its evidence and cannot draw strength %rom the wea;ness
o% the evidence %or the accused)[1+] Absent the reGuired degree o% proo% o% an accused@s guilt he is entitled to an acGuittal)[11] -n this
case the sei'ed mari5uana plants lin;ing appellant to the crime charged are miserably tainted with constitutional in%irmities which
render these inadmissible 7%or any purpose in any proceeding)7[1(] Nor can the con%ession obtained during the uncounselled
investigation be used against appellant 7it being inadmissible in evidence against him)B[1*] ?ithout these pro%%ered but proscribed
materials we %ind that the prosecution@s remaining evidence did not even approCimate the Guantum o% evidence necessary to warrant
appellant@s conviction) 4ence the presumption o% innocence in his %avor stands) 9er%orce his acGuittal is in order)
-n acGuitting an appellant we are not saying that he is lily:white or pure as driven snow) #ather we are declaring his innocence
because the prosecution@s evidence %ailed to show his guilt beyond reasonable doubt) For that is what the basic law reGuires) ?here the
evidence is insu%%icient to overcome the presumption o% innocence in %avor o% the accused then his 7acGuittal must %ollow in %aith%ul
obeisance to the %undamental law)7[12]
*HEREFORE, the decision promulgated on February 18 1!!" by the #egional $rial Court o% Bayombong Nueva &i'caya Branch
(" in Criminal Case No) *1+, %inding Abe &alde' y .ela Cru' guilty beyond reasonable doubt o% violating /ection ! o% the .angerous
.rugs Act o% 1!"( and imposing upon him the death penalty is hereby #E&E#/E. and /E$ A/-.E %or insu%%iciency o% evidence)
Appellant is ACED-$$E. and ordered #E>EA/E. immediately %rom con%inement unless held %or another law%ul cause)
SO OR"ERE".
Davide, +r., C.+., ,ello-illo, .elo, P)no, /it)g, 0a1)nan, .endo2a, Pangani*an, P)ri-i3a, Pardo, ,)ena, 4on2aga5Reye-, and De
Leon, +r., ++., concur.
6nare-5Santiago, +., on leave)