G.R. No. L-6909, February 20, 1912
THE UNITED STATES vs. HACHAW

FACTS

The defendant-appellant, Hachaw, was convicted for illegal possession of opium. The prosecution’s evidence came from three witnesses (Jose Mendoza, Alejo Hilario, and Antonio Aquino), who testified that they saw Hachaw acting suspiciously on a street in Cavite. When they called to him, he ran, prompting them to pursue and apprehend him. At the presidencia, a search of his pockets allegedly yielded a small quantity of opium wrapped in paper. Hachaw denied the accusation, claiming he never used or dealt in opium. He asserted that the opium was planted in his pocket by Mendoza and his companions. In support, Hachaw presented three Constabulary soldiers (a sergeant, corporal, and private) who testified that Mendoza had approached them with a scheme to plant opium on a Chinaman to extort money. They witnessed Mendoza surreptitiously place the opium in Hachaw’s pocket and later saw the same opium produced during the search at the presidencia.

ISSUE

Whether the evidence presented by the prosecution is sufficient to prove Hachaw’s guilt beyond reasonable doubt for illegal possession of opium.

RULING

No. The Supreme Court reversed the conviction and acquitted Hachaw. The Court found the testimony of the Constabulary soldiers credible and sufficient to raise a reasonable doubt about Hachaw’s guilt. Their account was deemed as reasonable as the prosecution’s version. The prosecution’s sole witness, Mendoza, provided no clear or lawful basis for Hachaw’s arrest, stating only that he wanted to see if Hachaw “had committed a crime.” This did not justify an arrest under constitutional and statutory guarantees of personal liberty. The trial court’s rejection of the defense witnesses’ testimony, based merely on the perceived unreasonableness of Mendoza involving others in a conspiracy, was not controlling. Given the conflicting testimonies and the unreliability of the prosecution’s evidence, a reasonable doubt existed, warranting acquittal.