Constitutional Law II- Rights of the Accused

Somollo, Deanne Mitzi LLB 1-A

1. Cariaga v. Court of Appeals et. al.

Facts: Jonathan Cariaga , employed as a truck driver of Davao Light
and Power CO. (DLPC) Inc., Davao City, with the used of the vehicle
assigned to him by the company was engaging in the pilferage of
electrical equipments belonging to DLPC. He was apprehended,
through the efforts of Luis Miguel Aboitiz, a Systems Analyst of DLCP,
who initiated a covert operation to ascertain how the Company
materials were being stolen, frequency of the thefts, who were the
perpetrators and to catch one DLPC employee that may be involved.
Assisted by Sgt. Fermin Vilasis Chief of the Theft and Robbery section
of the San Pedro Patrol Station , Davao, they employed one Florencio
Siton who adopted the pseudonym Canuto Duran Duran struck a
deal with the cousin of the CCUSED A SO CALLED Ricardo Cariaga. True
enough a deal took place between the parties where Ricardo would
provide the needed electrical materials provided that Canuto paid
certain amounts.
On February1, 1989 the operation came to an abrupt end when the
police apprehended Canuto. It was Canuto who urged Ricardo and
another Sergio Jamero to confess to their crimes and come out.
Ricardo revealed that the allegations wre true, his cousin, Jonathan
employed by DLPC was stealing equipments from the company and
that Ricardo was the fence who sold the ill procured products.
Upon such revelation, Jonathan was invited to the police station, an
invitation which he turned down by not appearing to give a statement.
During the trial in the RTC, the prosecution was unable to present
Ricardo as its witness because he was in Sultan Kudarat and the date
of his return to Davao was not certain. Nonetheless, the court found
the evidence as presented by the prosecution much more credible than
the puny denial of the accused. Upon Appeal, the court not only
affirmed the decision of the lower court but also affirmed the
admissibility of Ricardos testimony.
Hence, this appeal by review on certiorari.
Issue: Whether or not the right of Cariaga to confront his witness was
violated, if so whether or not the sworn testimony of such witness is
admissible.
Ruling: The Court is inclined to agree with the accused-appellant. The
Rules on Criminal Procedure specifically, Rule 115 Section 1 (f) which
mandates that in all instances of the criminal prosecution the accused
is entitled to confront and cross-examine the witnesses against him.
Furthermore, it is the responsibility of the prosecution to exhaust all
means in order to make sure that the witness is present. In this case,
the whereabouts of the witness was known and so it was well within
the power of the court a quo and the prosecution to produce the said
witness. Implementation of the Rule 115 is so strict, that unless the
witness is between the throes of life and death he must and should
appear. In previous cases (Toledo, Jr. vs. People) this Court has had the
occasion to expound that the stick compliance of the Rule 115 Section
1 (f) was so much so because it was the implementing translation of
the constitutional right of an accused to meet the witness against him
face to face.
On the very note that the prosecutor did not exhaust all means
possible to produce Ricardo Cariaga in court was a clear noncompliance with the legal requisites of Rule 115. Thus verily, the court

Constitutional Law II- Rights of the Accused

Somollo, Deanne Mitzi LLB 1-A

a quo and the Court of Appeals should not have admitted into evidence
the testimony of Ricardo.
Nonetheless, another testimony stands unperturbed that Florencio
Siton alias Canuto Duran. In fine, the mere inconsistencies in the
affidavit vis-avis the actually testimony he presented in court will not
make him uncredible, for long standing is the rule that witnesses are
weighed not counted.
The Supreme Court thus, AFFIRMED conviction with Modification as
to penalties.

2. PP. V.William Ong et.al.

Facts: Accused in this case were convicted for violating the Dangerous
Drugs law for selling one kilo of Methyl Amphethamine Hydrochloride
(Shabu). Unpn arraignment, it was not established that the accused
who are Chinese nationals had a working knowledge of English,
nonetheless they plead not guilty. It was clear however that they did
not have a working knowledge of English because in the course of the
trial the RTC was constrained to hire a Chinese interpreter. According to
the prosecution, an entrapment operation was created after the police
received valuable information from a confidential informant regarding
the illicit drug activities of William Ong. Inspector Albert Ignatius Ferro
formed a team of 8 with Police Inspecto Medel N. Pone as team leader
and SPO1 Gonazales as poseur-buyer and the rest as back-up support.
After the transaction was made by the CI and his contact, the deal was
agreed upon as to the meeting place and time. With these information
in place the police set-up the boodle money.
At the appointed time and place the SPO1 Gonzales came and so did
the accused, after the exchange took place the accused was thereat
arrested. The evidence was se to the PNP Crime Laboratory for
analysis. Police Inspector Grace M. Eustaquio tested the same and the
results came up as positive. Appellants on the other hand denied the
story concocted by the prosecution. The Court A Quo convicted the
accused and gave them the supreme penalty of death and a fine of
P1,000,000 (One Million Pesos). The case was then sent to the
Supreme Court on Automatic Appeal.
Issue: Whether or not the RTC erred in convicting the accused.
Ruling: The Supreme Court believed that it did. Rule 116 Section 1 (a)
of the Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure requires that the accused
should be furnished with a copy of the complaint or information,
reading the same in the language or dialect known to him. From the
very arraignment of the accused the Rule was violated. The accused in
this case were Chinese- who had no working knowledge of the English
language, the Certificate of Arraignment shows that the information
was written in English. The requirement mentioned by Rule 116 is
mandatory and must be strictly complied with because it is intended to
protect a substantive right laid down by the Constitution to be
informed of the nature and cause of the accusation against him.
Furthermore, the reliance of the Court A Quo on the sole testimony of
SPO1 Gonzales is in itself is an error. He was not privy to the

Constitutional Law II- Rights of the Accused

Somollo, Deanne Mitzi LLB 1-A

transaction that happened in fact a careful perusal of what transpired

in court will show that he was only a recipient of the information, that it
was merely relayed to him by the confidential informant. In the case at
bar the prosecutions evidence about the buy-bust operation is
incomplete. An incomplete testimony is nothing more than a hearsay
testimony, and in our Courts they are given no probative value, unless
the prosecution can prove that it falls within the exception of the
hearsay rule. To give it any weight would be tantamount to negating
the constitutional right to confront the witness against him, in this case
the informant, and to examine him for truthfulness.
The Supreme Court Reversed the findings of the RTC and ACQUITTED
the accused.

3. PP v. Bohol
Facts: information against