GR L 5737; (August, 1910) (Digest)
G.R. No. L-5737
THE UNITED STATES, plaintiff-appellee, vs. ENRIQUE LOPEZ SY QUINGCO and AMBROSIA DE JESUS, defendants-appellants.
August 5, 1910
FACTS:
Enrique Lopez Sy Quingco and Ambrosia de Jesus were charged with violating the Opium Law. The Court of First Instance of Tayabas found them guilty, sentencing Enrique to three years’ imprisonment and Ambrosia to one year. They subsequently appealed.
The prosecution’s sole witness, internal-revenue agent Burgess, testified that on July 6, 1909, he and agent Hoye searched the appellants’ house with a warrant. According to Burgess, while on the azotea with both appellants present, Enrique Lopez Sy Quingco told his wife, Ambrosia de Jesus, to “turn over that package.” Ambrosia de Jesus then allegedly retrieved a small package of opium pills from under her saya and gave it to Hoye. Burgess also claimed Enrique admitted that two other Chinamen had smoked opium in his house a month earlier. The pills were later analyzed and confirmed to contain opium.
The appellants, in their defense, admitted their house was searched but positively denied any knowledge of opium pills, stating that the agents found nothing and Ambrosia de Jesus did not hand over any package. Two municipal policemen who accompanied the agents testified for the defense, stating they remained downstairs during the search and did not see any package or anything found by the Americans. The prosecution did not call the other internal-revenue agent, Hoye, as a witness. Furthermore, the complaint was filed over two months after the search, which the Court found to be an inadequately explained delay.
ISSUE:
Whether the guilt of Enrique Lopez Sy Quingco and Ambrosia de Jesus was proven beyond a reasonable doubt.
RULING:
The Supreme Court reversed the judgment of the Court of First Instance and acquitted Enrique Lopez Sy Quingco and Ambrosia de Jesus.
The Court held that while the testimony of a single witness can sustain a conviction, Burgess’s testimony alone was not sufficient to establish the appellants’ guilt beyond a reasonable doubt in this case. The Court pointed to several weaknesses in the prosecution’s evidence:
1. The other internal-revenue agent, Hoye, who allegedly received the opium package, was not presented as a witness.
2. The appellants’ positive and consistent denial of the charges directly contradicted Burgess’s account.
3. The municipal policemen who were present did not corroborate the finding of opium.
4. The significant and inadequately explained delay of over two months between the search and the filing of the complaint further cast doubt on the prosecution’s case.
The Court emphasized the presumption of innocence, stating that the positive testimony of the two appellants was sufficient to raise a reasonable doubt as to their guilt, which must be resolved in their favor.