People Vs Ong

People vs Ong G.R. No. 137348 June 21, 2004 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 co-accused 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, appellants denied the story of the prosecution and maintained innocence to the crimes charged. 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 : Whether or not the testimony of the CI qualifies for the exceptions of the rules on hearsay? Ruling: No, 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 because a careful reading in his testimony would reveal that he was not privy to the sale transaction. 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.