a crime and decide to commit it.

Conspiracy presupposes capacity of

_______________

* SECOND DIVISION.

117

G.R. No. 162052. January 13, 2005.*

VOL. 448, JANUARY 13, 2005 117
ALVIN JOSE, petitioner, vs. PEOPLE OF THE
Jose vs. People
PHILIPPINES, respondent.

the parties to such conspiracy to discern what is right from what is

Criminal Law; Exempting Circumstances; Minority; For a
wrong. Since the prosecution failed to prove that the petitioner
minor over nine years of age and under fifteen to be criminally
acted with discernment, it cannot thereby be concluded that he
liable, the prosecution is burdened to prove beyond reasonable doubt,
conspired with his co-accused.
by direct or circumstantial evidence, that he acted with discernment,
meaning that he knew what he was doing and that it was wrong.· PETITION for review on certiorari of a decision of the
Under Article 12(3) of the Revised Penal Code, a minor over nine Court of Appeals.
years of age and under fifteen is exempt from criminal liability if The facts are stated in the opinion of the Court.
charged with a felony. The law applies even if such minor is charged Gatpayat & Bering Law Offices for petitioner.
with a crime defined and penalized by a special penal law. In such The Solicitor General for the People.
case, it is the burden of the minor to prove his age in order for him
to be exempt from criminal liability. The reason for the exemption is CALLEJO, SR., J.:
that a minor of such age is presumed lacking the mental element of
a crime·the capacity to know what is wrong as distinguished from This is a petition for review on certiorari of the Decision1
what is right or to determine the morality of human acts; wrong in of the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. CR No. 22289
the sense in which the term is used in moral wrong. However, such affirming with modification the Decision2 of the Regional
presumption is rebuttable. For a minor at such an age to be Trial Court of Calamba, Laguna, Branch 36, convicting the
criminally liable, the prosecution is burdened to prove beyond accused therein of violation of Section 21(b), Article IV in
reasonable doubt, by direct or circumstantial evidence, that he relation to Section 29, Article IV of Republic Act No. 6425,
acted with discernment, meaning that he knew what he was doing as amended.
and that it was wrong. Such circumstantial evidence may include The records show that Alvin Jose and Sonny Zarraga
the utterances of the minor; his overt acts before, during and after were charged with the said crime in an Information, the
the commission of the crime relative thereto; the nature of the accusatory portion of which reads:
weapon used in the commission of the crime; his attempt to silence
„That on or about November 14, 1995, in the municipality of
a witness; his disposal of evidence or his hiding the corpus delicti.
Calamba, Province of Laguna, and within the jurisdiction of this
Same; Same; Same; Conspiracy; Conspiracy presupposes Honorable Court, the above-named accused, conspiring,
capacity of the parties to such conspiracy to discern what is right confederating and mutually helping one another, not being licensed
from what is wrong.·The claim of the OSG that the prosecution or authorized by law, did then and there willfully, unlawfully and
was able to prove that the petitioner conspired with his co-accused feloniously sell and deliver to other person METHAMPHETAMINE
to sell shabu to the poseur-buyer, and thereby proved the capacity of HYDROCHLORIDE (or shabu) weighing 98.40 grams, a regulated
the petitioner to discern right from wrong, is untenable. Conspiracy drug, and in violation of the aforestated law.
is defined as an agreement between two or more persons to commit
_______________ Sonny Zarraga then asked Alvin Jose to bring out the shabu and
handover (sic) to Bonifacio Guevarra. SPO1 Bonifacio Guevarra, in
1 Penned by Associate Justice Juan Q. Enriquez, Jr., with Associate Justices
turn, handed the bundle of „money bills.‰
Bernardo P. Abesamis (retired) and Edgardo F. Sundiam, concurring.
2 Penned by Judge Norberto Y. Geraldez.
_______________
118
3 Rollo, p. 22.

118 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED 119

Jose vs. People

VOL. 448, JANUARY 13, 2005 119
CONTRARY TO LAW.‰3 Jose vs. People

The accused, assisted by counsel, pleaded not guilty to Guevarra scratched his head, the pre-arranged signal to signify
the charge. that the transaction was consummated (TSN, July 30, 1996, pp. 3-
As culled by the trial court, the evidence of the 8). Immediately thereafter, William Manglo and Wilfredo Luna
prosecution established the following: approached and introduced themselves as Narcom Operatives. They
. . . [O]n November 14, 1995, P/Supt. Joseph R. Castro of the arrested Sonny Zarraga and Alvin Jose. The buy-bust bundle of
Fourth Regional Narcotics Unit received an information from an „money bills‰ and the shabu were recovered. The two were brought
unnamed informant. Said unnamed informant was introduced to to Camp Vicente Lim for investigation. Edgar Groyon conducted the
him by former Narcom P/Senior Inspector Recomono. The investigation. The shabu was brought to the PNP Crime Laboratory
information was that a big time group of drug pushers from for examination (TSN, July 30, 1996, pp. 9-10 and TSN, October 3,
Greenhills will deliver 100 grams of shabu at Chowking Restaurant 1996, pp. 9-13). P/Senior Inspector Mary Jean Geronimo examined
located at Brgy. Real, Calamba, Laguna. the shabu. She reported and testified that the specimen, indeed,
Acting on such report, SPO1 Bonifacio Guevarra was assigned to was a second or low grade methamphetamine hydrochloride (TSN,
act as the poseur-buyer. SPO2 William Manglo and SPO2 Wilfredo July 30, 1996, pp. 31-36).4
Luna were the other members of the team. SPO1 Guevarra was
On the other hand, the accused therein were able to
provided with marked money consisting of a P1,000.00 bill on top of
establish the following facts:
a bundle of make-believe „money bills‰ supposedly amounting to
P100,000.00. P/Supt. Joseph R. Castro, SPO2 William Manglo and Sonny Zarraga and Alvin Jose claimed that, on November 13,
Wilfredo Luna went to the place on a Mitsubishi Lancer while SPO1 1995, they were at SM Mega Mall (sic), Mandaluyong, Metro
Guevarra and the informant boarded an L-300 van. They arrived at Manila, to change money. Suddenly, a person with a hand bag
the Chowking Restaurant at about 11:00 in the morning. They appeared and ordered them to handcuff themselves. They were
positioned their cars at the parking area where they had a later able to identify three of these people as Police Supt. Joseph
commanding view of people going in and out (TSN, October 3, 1996, Roxas Castro, SPO3 Noel Seno and a certain Corpuz. They were all
pp. 2-8 and TSN, July 11, 1996, pp. 4-7). in civilian clothes.
It was about 4 oÊclock in the afternoon when a Toyota Corolla They proceeded to where Sonny ZarragaÊs car was parked. Sonny
with Plate No. UBV-389 arrived. Sonny Zarraga was the driver with Zarraga was forced to board another car while another person drove
Alvin Jose. The unnamed informant approached and talked to Sonny ZarragaÊs car with Alvin Jose as passenger. They drove
Sonny Zarraga. Then, the informant called SPO1 Bonifacio towards Greenhills. They were eventually blindfolded. On the way
Guevarra and informed the latter that Sonny Zarraga had with him to Greenhills, one of the men opened the gloves compartment of
100 grams of shabu. SPO1 Bonifacio Guevarra offered to buy the Sonny ZarragaÊs car. One of the men saw a substance inside the said
shabu. Sonny Zarraga asked SPO1 Bonifacio Guevarra if he had the compartment. He tasted it. Said person asked Sonny Zarraga if he
money to buy 100 grams of shabu. Guevarra responded in the could come up with P1.5 Million peso (sic). Col. Castro even showed
affirmative. He showed the aforecited bundle of „money bills.‰ the picture of Sonny ZarragaÊs mother-in-law who was supposed to
be a rich drug pusher. undergone both by the accused shall be credited in their favor.
They ended up inside a room with a lavatory. While inside the Atty. Christopher R. Serrano, Branch Clerk of Court, is hereby
said room, Sonny ZarragaÊs cellular phone rung. It was a call from ordered to deliver and surrender the confiscated Methamphetamine
Sonny ZarragaÊs wife. Col. Castro talked to Pinky Zarraga and Hydrochloride to the Dangerous Drugs Board.
asked her if she could pay P1.5 Million as ransom for the release of SO ORDERED.‰6
Sonny Zarraga. Sonny Zarraga instead offered to withdraw money
from the On appeal to the CA, the accused-appellants averred
that the trial court erred as follows:
_______________
_______________
4 Id., at pp. 83-84.
5 Id., at pp. 84-85.
120
6 Id., at p. 88.

120 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED 121

Jose vs. People

VOL. 448, JANUARY 13, 2005 121
bank in the amount of P75,000.00. The agreement was that in the Jose vs. People
bank, Pinky Zarraga would withdraw the money and deliver it to
Col. Castro in exchange for Sonny ZarragaÊs release. The agreement
I
did not materialize. Col. Castro and Pinky Zarraga met inside the
THE TRIAL COURT GRAVELY ERRED IN GIVING FULL
bank but Pinky Zarraga refused to withdraw the money as Sonny
CREDENCE TO THE EVIDENCE PRESENTED BY THE
Zarraga was nowhere to be seen. There was a commotion inside the
PROSECUTION.
bank which prompted the bank manager to call the police.
II
Col. Castro left the bank in a hurry, passed by for Alvin Jose who
THE TRIAL COURT GRAVELY ERRED IN NOT CONSIDERING
was left at the room and brought them to Camp Vicente Lim. There,
THAT THE MERE PRESENTATION OF THE SHABU IN COURT
they were investigated.
IS NOT SUFFICIENT TO FIND, WITH ABSOLUTE CERTAINTY,
The defense claimed that SPO3 Noel Seno got Sonny ZarragaÊs
THAT THE APPELLANTS COMMITTED THE CRIME OF
jewelry, P85,000.00 in cash and Sonny ZarragaÊs car spare tire, jack
SELLING PROHIBITED DRUGS, ESPECIALLY WHEN THE
and accessories. Noel Seno was even able to withdraw the P2,000.00
IDENTITY OF THE DRUG WAS NOT PARTICULARLY SET OUT
using Sonny ZarragaÊs ATM card.5
IN THE TESTIMONY OF THE PROSECUTION WITNESSES.
On June 10, 1998, the trial court rendered judgment III
convicting both accused of the crime charged and EVEN GRANTING THAT THE TRIAL COURT CORRECTLY
sentencing each of them to an indeterminate penalty. The FOUND THE APPELLANTS GUILTY OF THE CRIME CHARGED
fallo of the decision reads: AGAINST THEM:
(a) THE TRIAL COURT DID NOT IMPOSE THE
„WHEREFORE, this Court finds both the accused Sonny PROPER PENALTY AGAINST THEM.
Zarraga and Alvin Jose guilty beyond reasonable doubt, for (b) EACH OF THE APPELLANTS CANNOT BE MADE
violation of R.A. 6425, as amended, and is hereby sentenced to TO PAY A FINE IN THE AMOUNT OF P2 MILLION PESOS
suffer the penalty of imprisonment of, after applying the (SIC) AND THE COST OF THE SUIT.7
Indeterminate Sentence Law, six (6) years and one (1) day to ten
(10) years. The CA rendered judgment affirming the decision
Both accused are hereby ordered to pay the fine of P2 million appealed from with modification. The appellate court
each and to pay the cost of suit. reduced the penalty imposed on appellant Alvin Jose, on its
In the service of sentence, the preventive imprisonment finding that he was only thirteen (13) years old when he
committed the crime; hence, he was entitled to the to make a finding that he acted with discernment under
privileged mitigating circumstance of minority and to a paragraph 1, Article 68 of the Revised Penal Code and
reduction of the penalty by two degrees. The appellant filed since the CA made no such finding, he is entitled to an
a motion for reconsideration, alleging that since the acquittal.
Information failed to allege that he acted with discernment For its part, the Office of the Solicitor General (OSG)
when the crime was committed and that the prosecution asserts that the allegation in the Information that the
failed to prove the same, he should be acquitted. The petitioner and his co-accused conspired and confederated to
appellate court denied the motion. sell the shabu subject of the Information sufficiently avers
that the petitioner acted with discernment; hence, there
_______________ was no need for the public prosecutor to allege specifically
in the Informa-
7 Id., at pp. 24-25.

_______________
122

8 Id., at p. 8.
122 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED
123
Jose vs. People
VOL. 448, JANUARY 13, 2005 123
Appellant Jose, now the petitioner, filed his petition for
review on certiorari, alleging that· Jose vs. People

THE COURT OF APPEALS GRAVELY ERRED IN NOT tion that the petitioner so acted. It contends that it is not
ACQUITTING PETITIONER DESPITE (1) THE FAILURE OF necessary for the trial and appellate courts to make an
THE PROSECUTION TO PROVE BEYOND REASONABLE express finding that the petitioner acted with discernment.
DOUBT THAT PETITIONER, WHO WAS ONLY 13 YEARS OLD It is enough that the very acts of the petitioner show that
WHEN THE CRIME WAS ALLEGEDLY COMMITTED BY HIM IN he acted knowingly and was sufficiently possessed with
CONSPIRACY WITH CO-ACCUSED SONNY ZARRAGA, ACTED judgment to know that the acts he committed were wrong.
WITH DISCERNMENT, AND (2) THE ABSENCE OF A The petition is meritorious.
DECLARATION BY THE TRIAL COURT THAT PETITIONER SO Under Article 12(3) of the Revised Penal Code, a minor
ACTED WITH DISCERNMENT, PURSUANT TO THE over nine years of age and under fifteen is exempt from
APPLICABLE PROVISIONS OF THE REVISED PENAL CODE criminal liability if charged with a felony. The law applies
AND THE ESTABLISHED JURISPRUDENCE.8 even if such minor is charged with a crime defined and
penalized by a special penal law. In such case, it is the
The petitioner asserts that, under paragraph 3, Article
burden of the minor to prove his age in order for him to be
12 of the Revised Penal Code, a minor over nine (9) and
exempt from criminal liability. The reason for the
under fifteen (15) years of age at the time of the
exemption is that a minor of such age is presumed lacking
commission of the crime is exempt from criminal liability
the mental element of a crime·the capacity to know what
unless he acted with discernment, in which case he shall be
is wrong as distinguished from what is right or to
proceeded against in accordance with Article 192 of
determine the morality of human acts; wrong in the sense
Presidential Decree (P.D.) No. 603, as amended by P.D. No.
in which the term is used in moral wrong.9 However, such
1179, as provided for in Article 68 of the Revised Penal
presumption is rebuttable.10 For a minor at such an age to
Code. He avers that the prosecution was burdened to allege
be criminally liable, the prosecution is burdened11 to prove
in the Information and prove beyond reasonable doubt that
beyond reasonable doubt, by direct or circumstantial
he acted with discernment, but that the prosecution failed
evidence, that he acted with discernment, meaning that he
to do so. The petitioner insists that the court is mandated
knew what he was doing and that it was wrong.12 Such
circumstantial evidence may include the utterances of the specifically . . . I withdraw that.
minor; his overt acts before, during and after the Q When you said they asked you whether you can afford to buy 100
commission of the crime relative thereto; the nature of the grams tell us who asked you that question?
weapon used in the commission of the crime; his attempt to A Sonny Zarraga, Sir.
silence a witness; his disposal of evidence or his hiding the Q And after you answer (sic) in the affirmative, what was his response?
corpus delicti. A He let his companion to (sic) bring out the shabu, Sir.
Q Did his companion bring out the shabu?

_______________ A Yes, Sir.

125
9 Wharton, Criminal Law, Vol. I, p. 74.
10 Jarco Marketing Corporation v. Court of Appeals, 321 SCRA 375
VOL. 448, JANUARY 13, 2005 125
(1999); Guevarra v. Almodovar, 169 SCRA 476 (1989).
Jose vs. People
11 Godfrey v. State, 31 Ala. 323 (1858).
12 Adams v. State, 262 A.2d 60 (1970).
Q What happened to the shabu?
A Alvin Jose handed the shabu to his companion Sonny Zarraga.
124
Q After that, what did Sonny Zarraga do with the shabu?
A He handed it to me, Sir.
124 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED Q After this shabu was handed to you, what happened next?
Jose vs. People A After examining the shabu, I put it in my pocket and then I handed to
him the money, Sir.
Q When you say money, which money are you referring to?
In the present case, the prosecution failed to prove
A The P1,000.00 bill with the bundle of boodle money, Sir.
beyond reasonable doubt that the petitioner, who was
Q Now, after you handed the money to the accused, what happened next?
thirteen (13) years of age when the crime charged was
A I made signs to my companions, Sir.
committed, acted with discernment relative to the sale of
Q What signs did you give?
shabu to the poseur-buyer. The only evidence of the
A I acted upon our agreement by scratching my head, Sir.
prosecution against the petitioner is that he was in a car
Q And how did your companions respond to your signal?
with his cousin, co-accused Sonny Zarraga, when the latter
A After scratching my head, my companions approached us and arrested
inquired from the poseur-buyer, SPO1 Bonifacio Guevarra,
them.
if he could afford to buy shabu. SPO1 Guevarra replied in
Q Now, tell us, do you know, in particular, who arrested Sonny Zarraga?
the affirmative, after which the accused Zarraga called the
A Yes, Sir.
petitioner to bring out and hand over the shabu wrapped in
Q Tell us.
plastic and white soft paper. The petitioner handed over
A SPO1 William Manglo and PO3 Wilfredo Luna, Sir.
the plastic containing the shabu to accused Zarraga, who
Q Can you describe to us the manner by which Sonny Zarraga was
handed the same to the poseur-buyer:
arrested by these police officers?
Q Whom did you approach to buy the shabu? A Yes, Sir.
A The two of them, Sir. Q Please tell us.
Q While the two of them was (sic) sitting inside the car, what did you tell A They introduced themselves as NARCOM operatives, Sir.
them? Q And after that, what happened?
A They asked me if I can afford to buy the 100 grams, Sir. A They recovered the money from Sonny Zarraga, Sir.13
Q And what was your response? ...
A I answer in (sic) affirmative, Sir. Q What happened to the shabu which was handed to you by the accused?
Q And what happened next?
A After that I showed my money, Sir. _______________

Q Now, tell us when you said they reply (sic) in the affirmative
13 TSN, 30 July 1996, pp. 7-9.
 126 Q Mr. Guevarra, may I remind you that, in your affidavit, you stated the
age of the boy?
126 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED A I cannot recall anymore, Sir.
Jose vs. People Q Were you not surprised from just looking at the boy at his age, were
you not surprised that a young boy like that would be in a group
A It was brought by our office to the crime laboratory, Sir. selling drugs?
Q Who made the request for its examination? FISCAL:
A SPO3 Edgar Groyon, Sir.   It calls for an opinion, Your Honor.
Q Earlier, you said that the shabu was handed to you. What did you do ATTY. VERANO:
with the shabu?   May I ask, Your Honor, if he did not further interrogate why or how
A While we were at the area, I handed it to SPO1 William Manglo, Sir. this very young boy (sic) selling 100 grams of shabu.
Q Tell us, when this shabu was handed to you by the accused, in what COURT:
container was it contained?   The witness may answer.
A When it was handed to me by Sonny Zarraga it was wrapped in a WITNESS:
plastic and white soft paper, Sir.14 A No more, Sir, because I know that young boys are being used by
pushers.15
It was accused Zarraga who drove the car and
transacted with the poseur-buyer relative to the sale of Even on cross-examination, the public prosecutor failed
shabu. It was also accused Zarraga who received the buy- to elicit from the petitioner facts and circumstances
money from the poseur-buyer. Aside from bringing out and showing his capacity to discern right from wrong. We quote
handing over the plastic bag to accused Zarraga, the the questions of the public prosecutor on cross-examination
petitioner merely sat inside the car and had no other and the petitionerÊs answers thereto:
participation whatsoever in the transaction between the
accused Zarraga and the poseur-buyer. There is no evidence FISCAL:

that the petitioner knew what was inside the plastic and   Cross, Your Honor. May I proceed.

soft white paper before and at the time he handed over the COURT:

same to his cousin. Indeed, the poseur-buyer did not bother   Please proceed.

to ask the petitioner his age because he knew that pushers FISCAL:

used young boys in their transactions for illegal drugs. We Q Mr. Witness, you started your narration that it started on November

quote the testimony of the poseur-buyer: 13, 1995 and did I hear it right that you went to Manuela at 5 oÊclock
in the afternoon?
ATTY. VERANO:
Q Did you try to find out if they were friends of your informant? _______________
A No, Sir.
15 Id., at p. 29.
Q Did you find out also the age of this Mr. Alvin Yamson?
A I donÊt know the exact age, what I know is that he is a minor, Sir. 128

_______________ 128 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

14 Id., at p. 10. Jose vs. People

127 WITNESS:
A Yes, Sir.
VOL. 448, JANUARY 13, 2005 127 Q Now, when you went to Manuela, you came from Filinvest, Quezon
Jose vs. People City? You left Filinvest, Quezon City, at 12 oÊclock?
A No, Sir.
Q Eventually, you find (sic) out how old he is (sic)? Q What time did you leave?
A I donÊt know, Sir.
A After lunch, Sir.   No further question, Your Honor.
Q Now, on the second day which you claimed that you were in the custody ATTY. VERANO:
of the police, you said that at one occasion on that day, you have (sic) a   No re-direct, Your Honor.
chance to be with your cousin in a [L]ancer car and it was inside that COURT:
[L]ancer car when your cousin saw his own cellular phone on one of Q Mr. Witness, earlier you stated that you are not a drug user nor have
the seats of the car, is that correct? you seen any shabu. In support of your claim, are you willing to
A Yes, Sir. submit yourself to an examination?
Q Did your cousin tell you that that was his first opportunity to make a WITNESS:
call to anybody since the day that you were arrested? A Yes, Your Honor.
A He did not say anything, he just get (sic) the cellular phone. Q Are you willing to submit a sample of your urine to this Court?
Q Did you come to know the reason how that cellular phone appeared A Yes, Sir.
inside that [L]ancer car? COURT:
A No, Sir.   The witness is discharged.16
Q Now, going back to the first day of your arrest. You said that you were
accosted by a male person at the workshop and then you went out of _______________
Megamall and when you went outside, this man saw the key of the car
dangling at the waist. At whose waist? 16 TSN, 23 September 1997, pp. 27-29.
A From my cousin.
130
Q And at that time, that person did not have any knowledge where your
car was?
A No, Sir. 130 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED
Q And your cousin told him that your car was parked at the third level
Jose vs. People
parking area of SM Megamall, is that correct?
A Yes, Sir.
Q And at that time, that man did not make any radio call to anybody?
The claim of the OSG that the prosecution was able to
prove that the petitioner conspired with his co-accused to
129 sell shabu to the poseur-buyer, and thereby proved the
capacity of the petitioner to discern right from wrong, is
VOL. 448, JANUARY 13, 2005 129 untenable. Conspiracy is defined as an agreement between
Jose vs. People two or more persons to commit a crime and decide to
commit it. Conspiracy presupposes capacity of the parties
A No, Sir.
to such conspiracy to discern what is right from what is
Q Until the time that you reached the third level parking of Megamall,
wrong. Since the prosecution failed to prove that the
he had not made any call?
petitioner acted with discernment, it cannot thereby be
A No, Sir.
concluded that he conspired with his co-accused. Indeed, in
Q And yet when you reach (sic) the third level parking of the Megamall,
People v. Estepano,17 we held that:
you claimed that there was already this group which met you?
A Yes, Sir. „Clearly, the prosecution did not endeavor to establish ReneÊs
Q And this group were the policemen who are the companions of the male mental capacity to fully appreciate the consequences of his unlawful
person who arrested you? act. Moreover, its cross-examination of Rene did not, in any way,
A Yes, Sir. attempt to show his discernment. He was merely asked about what
Q Do you know the reason why they were there at that time? he knew of the incident that transpired on 16 April 1991 and
A No, Sir. whether he participated therein. Accordingly, even if he was,
Q These people do not know your car? indeed, a co-conspirator, he would still be exempt from criminal
A No, Sir. liability as the prosecution failed to rebut the presumption of non-
FISCAL: discernment on his part by virtue of his age. The cross-examination
 of Rene could have provided the prosecution a good occasion to
extract from him positive indicators of his capacity to discern. But,
in this regard, the government miserably squandered the
opportunity to incriminate him.‰18

IN LIGHT OF ALL THE FOREGOING, the petition is

GRANTED. The Decision of the Court of Appeals in CA-
G.R. CR No. 22289 which affirmed the Decision of the
Regional Trial Court of Calamba, Laguna, Branch 36, is
SET ASIDE. The petitioner is ACQUITTED of the crime
charged for insufficiency of evidence.19
No costs.

_______________

17 307 SCRA 701 (1999).

18 Id., at p. 712.
19 There is no showing in the Rollo whether the petitioner posted bail
or is detained.

© Copyright 2020 Central Book Supply, Inc. All rights reserved.