Sie sind auf Seite 1von 6

People vs Ong

G.R. No. 137348


June 21, 2004
Criminal Case Digest
Facts:
Based on prosecution through the testimony of SPO1 Rodolfo S. Gonzales, in the afternoon of July 23,
1998, a confidential informant (CI) of the Special Operations Division (SOD), PNP Narcotics Group,
reported to Chief Inspector Albert Ignatius D. Ferro about the alleged illicit drug activities of accused
William Ong and Ching De Ming @ Robert Tiu. As per order of Chief Inspector Ferro, a team of eight
decided to conduct a buy-bust operation. Once, CI confirmed the meeting time and venue with the
drug dealer, and exchanges of gift-wrapped packages rendered of one (1) sealed plastic bag with a
white crystalline substance by the accused Ong and boodle money placed in a W. Brown plastic bag
by SPO1 Gonzales, thereafter, the latter arrested Ong while the CI and the back-up agents arrested coaccused De Ming.
The two (2) accused were brought to the police office where the corresponding booking sheets and
arrest report were prepared. The plastic bag containing the illegal drug substance, was referred to the
Philippine National Police (PNP) Crime Laboratory for examination, positive for methyl amphetamine
hydrochloride or shabu, a regulated drug.
However, the appellants denied the story of the prosecution. Accused William Ong, a Chinese citizen
from the Peoples Republic of China (PRC), claimed that he came to the Philippines in 1997 to look for a
job. Initially, he worked in a pancit factory in Quezon City, but later hunted for another job, was
referred by his friend Kian Ling to Ong Sin for a possible job as a technician in a bihon factory owned by
Sin. Subsequently, without any knowledge of his new job, William Ong was later taken to the police
station and there he met the other accused Ching De Ming for the first time. He maintained innocence
to the crime charged.
On his part, accused Ching De Ming testified that he is a legitimate businessman engaged in the RTW
business. On that same date of the commission of the crime, while waiting for his girlfriend and her
mother, whose mother Avenlina Cardoz, testified in De Mings favor and corroborated with his story,
that he was approached by persons unknown to him. He was misidentified as one of the accused and
dragged him out of his car and brought to the other car, took his clutch bag, then after a few hours, at
Camp Crame, they removed his blindfold. He denied knowing Ong and the charge of conspiring with
him to deliver shabu in New Manila, Quezon City.
On November 18, 1998 the trial court convicted appellants as charged and imposed on them the
penalty of death. It likewise ordered each of them to pay a fine of P1 million pesos. However, the case
was on automatic review. Appellants insist on their innocence. They claim that their guilt was not
proven beyond reasonable doubt.
Issue:
(a) Whether or not the arraignment of appellants violates Rule 116, Section (a) of the Revised Rules of
Criminal Procedure?
Held:
The aforementioned provision on Arraignment and Plea provides that (a) The accused must be
arraigned before the court where the complaint or information was filed or assigned for trial. The
arraignment shall be made in open court by the judge of clerk by furnishing the accused with a copy of
the complaint or information, reading the same in the language or dialect known to him, and asking
him whether he pleads guilty or not guilty. The prosecution may call at the trial witnesses other than

those named in the complaint or information.


The trial court held that the arraignment of appellants violated the above rule. Appellants are Chinese
nationals. Their Certificate of Arraignment states that they were informed of the accusations against
them. It does not, however, indicate whether the information was read in the language or dialect
known to them.
Both accused Ong and De Ming were arraigned, assisted by counsel de parte, and both entered a plea
of not guilty. From the records, it was clear that appellants only knew the Chinese language, however
the appellants were arraigned on an information written in the English language. The requirement that
the information should be read in a language or dialect known to the accused is mandatory. It must be
strictly complied with as it is intended to protect the constitutional right of the accused to be informed
of the nature and cause the of the accusation against him. The constitutional protection is part of due
process. Failure to observe the rules necessarily nullifies the arraignment. After the arraignment and in
the course of the trial, the lower court had to secure the services of a certain Richard Ng Lee as
Chinese interpreter.
Hence, it is abundantly clear that it was the CI who made the initial contact, and he was likewise the
one who closed the deal with accused William Ong, and set the venue and time of the meeting. Since
only the CI had personal knowledge of the offer to purchase shabu, the court held that SPO1 Gonzales
is, in effect, not the poseur-buyer but merely the deliveryman. His testimony therefore on material
points of the sale of shabu is hearsay and standing alone cannot be the basis of the conviction of the
appellants.
The buy-bust operation is a form of entrapment, which in recent years has been accepted as a valid
means of arresting violators of the Dangerous Drugs Law. However, to determine whether there was
valid entrapment or whether proper procedures were undertaken by the police officers, in effecting
the buy-bust operation, it is incumbent upon the courts to make sure that the details of the operation
are clearly and adequately laid out through relevant, material and competent evidence.
In the case at bar, the prosecution evidence about the buy-bust operation is incomplete. The
confidential information who had sole knowledge of how the alleged illegal sale of shabu started and
how it was perfected was not presented as a witness. His testimony was given instead by SPO1
Gonzales who had no personal knowledge of the same and not part of the buy-bust operation.
Although, the court is sharply aware of the compelling considerations why confidential informants are
usually not presented by the prosecution. Likewise, once the identity of the informer has been
disclosed to those who would have cause to resent the communication, the privilege is no longer
applicable.
In sum, there is no fixed rule with respect to disclosure of the identity of an informer. The problem has
to be resolved on a case to case basis and calls for balancing the state interest in protecting the people
from crimes against the individuals right to prepare his defense. The balance must be adjusted by
giving due weight to the following factors, among others: (1) the crime charged, (2) the possible
defenses, (3) the possible significance of the informers testimony, and (4) other relevant factors.
In the present case, the crime charged against the appellants is capital in character and can result in
the imposition of the death penalty. The prosecution has to prove all the material elements of the
alleged sale of shabu and the resulting buy-bust operation. Where the testimony of the informer is
indispensable. It should be disclosed. The liberty and the life of a person enjoy high importance in our
scale of values. It cannot be diminished except by a value of higher significance. Moreover, the
mishandling and transfer of custody of the alleged confiscated methyl amphetamine hydrochloride
further shattered the case of the prosecution. There is no crime of illegal sale of regulated drug when
there is a nagging doubt on whether the substance confiscated was the same specimen examined and
established to be regulated drug.

The court decided to reverse and set aside its former decision. Appellants Ong and De Ming @ Tiu are
acquitted of the crime of the violation of the Dangerous Drugs Act of 1972, as amended, and are
ordered immediately released from custody unless held for some other lawful cause.

Calimutan v. People
G.R. No. 152133, February 9, 2006
Lesson: Proof beyond reasonable doubt, Defense of Stranger, Proximate Cause, intentional
felonies and culpable felonies
Laws Applicable: Art. 3, Art. 4, Par. 1

o
o
o

FACTS:
February 4, 1996 around 10 am: Cantre and witness Saano, together with two other companions,
had a drinking spree at a videoke bar but as they were headed home, they crossed paths with
Calimutan and Michael Bulalacao.
Cantre, 26 years old and 5 ft. 9 inches, had a grudge against Bulalacao, a 15 year-old boy of 5ft. for
suspecting that he threw stones at the his house on a previous night so he punched him
Seeking to protect Bulalacao and to stop Cantre, Calimutan picked a stone, as big as a mans fist
and hitting Cantre at the left side of his back not noticing that Bulalacao was already able to ran
away.
Cantre stopped for a moment and held his back and Calimutan desisted from any other act of
violence
Witness Saano then brought Cantre home where he complained of backache and also of stomach
ache and was unable to eat
By night time, he felt cold then warm then he was sweating profusely and his entire body felt numb
Having no vehicle, they could not bring him to a doctor so his mother just continue to wipe him with a
piece of cloth and brought him some food when he asked.
After eating a little, he vomited.
Shortly after complaining again of his backache and stomach ache, he died.
The Post-Mortem Examination Report and Certification of Death, issued and signed by Dr. Ulanday,
stated that the cause of death of victim Cantre was cardio-respiratory arrest due to suspected food
poisoning
With the help of the Lingkod Bayan-Circulo de Abogadas of the ABS-CBN Foundation, an autopsy
was done by Dr. Ronaldo B. Mendez which showed that there was internal hemorrhage and massive
accumulation of blood in his abdominal cavity due to his lacerated spleen caused by a blunt object
like a stone.
RTC issued a warrant of arrest and during arraignment Calimutan pleaded not guilty to the crime of
homicide
RTC: Essentially adopting the prosecutions account of the incident, held that Calimutan was guilty
beyond reasonable doubt of homicide with a penalty of imprisonment from 8 years of Prision Mayor
as minimum, to 12 years and 1 day of Reclusion Temporal as maximum, and to indemnify the heirs
of Philip Cantre the sum of P50,000 as compensatory damages and the sum of P50,000 as moral
damages

o NOT defense of stranger , because after the boxing Bulalacao, he was able to run thereby the
unlawful aggression by Cantre ceased
o The act of throwing a stone from behind which hit the victim at his back on the left side was a
treacherous
o criminally liable for all the direct and natural consequences of this unlawful act even if the ultimate
result had not been intended

CA: Affirmed RTC

Calimutan filed a petition for review on certiorari contending that the dissimilar findings on the cause
of death constituted reasonable doubt
ISSUE: W/N he is guilty beyond reasonable doubt of homicide
HELD: NO. MODIFIED Calimutan is found GUILTY beyond reasonable doubt of reckless
imprudence resulting in homicide, under Article 365 of the Revised Penal Code, and is accordingly
sentenced to imprisonment for a minimum period of 4 months of arresto mayor to a maximum period
of two years and one day of prision correccional. Petitioner Calimutan is further ORDERED to pay
the heirs of the victim Cantre the amount of P50,000.00 as civil indemnity for the latters death and
P50,000.00 as moral damages

Proof beyond reasonable doubt requires only a moral certainty or that degree of proof which
produces conviction in an unprejudiced mind (NOT absolute certainty and the exclusion of all
possibility of error)
o Dr. Mendezs testimony as an expert witness is evidence, and although it does not necessarily bind
the courts, it is accorded great weight and probative value
may sufficiently establish the causal relationship between the stone thrown by the Calimutan and the
lacerated spleen of the Cantre which resulted in the latters death

Proximate cause - cause, which, in natural and continuous sequence, unbroken by any efficient
intervening cause, produces the injury, and WITHOUT which the result would NOT have occurred
o Prosecution was able to establish that the proximate cause of the death of the Cantre was the stone
thrown at him by petitioner Calimutan.

Comparing the limited autopsy conducted by Dr. Ulanday and her unconfirmed suspicion of food
poisoning of the victim Cantre, as opposed to the exhaustive autopsy performed by Dr. Mendez and
his definitive finding of a ruptured spleen as the cause of death, then the latter, without doubt,
deserves to be given credence by the courts

Article 3 of the Revised Penal Code classifies felonies according to the means by which they are
committed, in particular:
o (1) intentional felonies - existence of malicious intent
act is performed with deliberate intent (with malice)
o (2) culpable felonies - absence of malicious intent
act or omission of the offender is NOT malicious
the wrongful act results from imprudence, negligence, lack of foresight or lack of skill

Absence of intent, Calimutan guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the culpable felony of reckless
imprudence resulting in homicide under Article 365 of the Revised Penal Code
o Reckless imprudence consists in voluntarily, but without malice, doing or failing to do an act from
which material damage results by reason of inexcusable lack of precaution on the part of the person
performing or failing to perform such act, taking into consideration his employment or occupation,
degree of intelligence, physical condition and other circumstances regarding persons, time and
place.

PEOPLE v. ROBERT NUEZ y LAGASCA


G.R. No. 112092. March 1, 2001
Accused was found guilty of Illegal possession of firearm resulting to the death of the victim and
pursuant to P.D. 1866 in relation to the 1987 Constitution the court sentences the said accused to
suffer the penalty of life imprisonment and with costs.
HELD:
Appellant was convicted of illegal possession of firearms resulting to the death of the victim. At
the time of the commission of the crime, the existing jurisprudence was People v. Quijada. The SC
held then that the use of an unlicensed firearm in a killing results in two separate crimes one
for the aggravated form of illegal possession of firearm and two, for homicide or murder. In the
meantime, however, Congress passed Republic Act No. 8294, 27 which lowered the penalties for
illegal possession of firearms. Further, Section 1, third par. of R.A. No. 8294 provides If homicide
or murder is committed with the use of an unlicensed firearm, such use of an unlicensed firearm
shall be considered as an aggravating circumstance.
In the present case, there were four cases filed against appellant which were all separately tried.
Hence, the evidence as to the homicide and frustrated homicide cases were neither adopted nor
presented before the trial court trying the illegal possession case. For this reason, there is a
dearth of evidence on record to support the finding of homicide and/or frustrated homicide.
The Court held that accordingly, appellant should only be convicted of simple illegal possession of
firearms. The lowered penalties as provided in R.A. No. 8294, being favorable to the accused,
should be applied retroactively.

PEOPLE v. PEDRO SASPA, ET AL.


G.R. No. 123069 March 1, 2001
The trial court found both Pedro Saspa and Rafael Sumiling principally liable for the murder of
Isidro Hayo, and sentenced each of them to suffer the penalty of reclusion perpetua, together
with its accessory penalties, and ordered them to indemnify the heirs of the victim in the amount
of P50,000.00.
HELD:

The SC affirmed the trial courts holding that appellants employed superior strength in the
execution of the crime, thus qualifying the killing to murder. When appellants attacked the victim,
they had the advantage of numerical superiority and were carrying high-powered firearms;
whereas the victim was unarmed and utterly defenseless, not to mention that he was taken by
surprise by the swiftness of the assault. Clearly, there was a notorious inequality between the
strength of the victim and his assailants. The Court, however, did not sustain the trial courts
appreciation of the aggravating circumstances of band and ignominy. A band consists of at least
four armed malefactors acting together in the commission of an offense. The prosecution failed to
prove that there were at least four armed men Thelma testified that three of Isidros assailants
were armed, while Sulpicio did make any declaration as to how many of his sons attackers were
actually armed. Neither did the prosecution prove the existence of ignominy, which is a
circumstance that adds disgrace and obloquy to the material injury caused by the crime. There
was no showing that appellants deliberately employed means which would cause more suffering or
humiliation to the victim.
At the time the crime was committed the penalty for death was reclusion temporal in the
maximum period to death. In the absence of any aggravating and mitigating circumstances, the
penalty should be imposed in its medium period, or reclusion perpetua. The SC found appellants
guilty of the crime of murder, and sentenced them each to suffer the penalty of reclusion
perpetua and to pay the heirs.

Das könnte Ihnen auch gefallen