Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
Download as docx, pdf, or txt
You are on page 1/ 1
26. People v. Alglen Reyes y Paulina [GR. 225736, Oct.
15, 2018]
FACTS: Accused was arrested after a successful buy bust operation. He was eventually found guilty of violating RA 9165 (Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act) for the sale of shabu. Accused alleged that he was in fact fueling his motorcycle after buying medicine for his mother, when 4 men suddenly handcuffed him and searched him, but found nothing illegal from him. RTC found him guilty, CA affirmed.
ISSUE: WON the RTC and CA erred in convicting Reyes
HELD: Yes. The Information filed against Reyes in this case was defective, for which reason alone Reyes should be acquitted. The importance of sufficiency of the Information cannot be more emphasized; it is an essential component of the right to due process in criminal proceedings as the accused possesses the right to be sufficiently informed of the cause of the accusation against him. This is implemented through Rule 110, Sections 8 and 9 of the Rules of Court. In the case at bar, the Information filed against Reyes failed to sufficiently identify therein all the components of the first element of the crime of sale of dangerous drugs, namely: the identity of the buyer, the object, and the consideration. The prosecution did not try to offer an explanation as to why not one of the three required witnesses – a representative from the DOJ, a media representative, and an elective official – was present in the buy-bust operation conducted against Reyes. The prosecution did not also address the issue in their pleadings, and the RTC and the CA instead had to rely only on the presumption that police officers performed their functions in the regular manner to support Reyes' conviction. It bears emphasis that the presence of the required witnesses at the time of the apprehension and inventory is mandatory, and that the law imposes the said requirement because their presence serves an essential purpose.
